Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Another Member made and subscribed the Affirmation required by Law.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

EALING CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next, at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Token Imports

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of imports entering the United Kingdom under the Token Import Scheme in 1951; and what revision of the scheme is contemplated.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): The value of actual imports under the Token Import Scheme in 1951 is not available, but import licences were issued in 1951 to a value of nearly £4.4 million. Some of these licences were not, or were not fully, used. As has already been announced. the Scheme is to continue in 1952 at a reduced level, and only for imports from the United States and Canada. Manufacturers in these countries will be allowed to send to the United Kingdom 30 per cent. by value of their pre-war exports of the commodities concerned, as compared with 40 per cent. in 1951. The Scheme will cover the same commodities as in 1951.

Mr. Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend consider looking at the categories, since many people complain that they are able to buy luxury American goods and are not able to buy food? As there will be a restriction on certain categories of American luxury goods for many years ahead, is it wise to continue token imports?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that there is value from the goodwill point of view in trying to maintain some small trade in traditional trades of this character, but I am prepared to look at the list to see whether, under the existing ceiling of expenditure, it should be amended.

Monopolies Commission (Reports)

Mr. Leslie Hale: asked the President of the Board of Trade what matters are still under consideration by the Monopolies Commission; and by what date it is expected that reports will be received on each of these matters.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I hope to receive the Commission's report on electric cables during April. The report on matches and match-making machinery and the report on insulin are expected to follow during the course of this year. The other subjects before the Commission are nonferrous metals, the printing of fabrics, and imported timber: I cannot at present say when reports of these matters may be expected.

Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this does seem a very long period for these considerations to go on, particularly when dealing with matters of great urgency, and will he tell House what action he has now decided to take upon the reports already submitted to him?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The question of action on the reports should, of course, be addressed to the production Departments concerned. I am as concerned as the hon. Member about the number of reports that can be got through the Commission in its present form, and it is because of this that some amending legislation has been considered.

Major Guy Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend consider referring to the Monopolies Commission the worst monopolies of all—some of the great nationalised industries?

Utility Clothing

Mr. Hale: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the proposed increases in the range of utility clothing.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have nothing to add to the statement which I made about the Utility schemes on 13th March during the debate on the Budget proposals.

Mr. Hale: In view of the fact that that deplorable statement was made after this Question was put down, will the right hon. Gentleman now undertake to produce in the form of a White Paper, or in some other handy form, the results on prices of the action that he has taken, with some comparable extracts from the Conservative propaganda on the price of clothing at the last Election?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will endeavour to see if all the information which the hon. Gentleman could wish for on this matter can be made available to him.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as the position stands at present, people who can buy suits off the peg have the benefit of the utility range, but people like disabled ex-Service men who have to have suits made to measure have to pay Purchase Tax?

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Can the President of the Board of Trade tell me where his responsibility ends and where the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer commences in this matter? Is he aware that a Question which I put to him about the price of outsizes has now been transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? May I have an answer, because this is a very important matter?

Motor Cycles (Hire Purchase Order)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade the classification into which motor cycles come for the purpose of the recent alterations in the hire purchase regulations.

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now amend the Hire Purchase and Credit Sale Agreement Control Order, 1952, to bring motor cycles into the same category as motor cars.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Under the terms of the Order, hire purchase agreements for motor cycles were made subject to the same requirements as those for bicycles. I have reconsidered this classification in the light of further information brought to my notice, and am now proposing to amend the Order so that motor cycles will be made subject to the same requirements as imposed on motor cars. I hope that the Order will be issued shortly. I am grateful to both hon. Members and to other hon. Members, including my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) for having drawn my attention to this matter.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: When the right hon. Gentleman is reconsidering this question, will he also consider reducing to some extent the initial payment that is required for motor cycles?

Government Departments (Scales Inspections)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that all Government Departments are exempted from inspection by weights and measures Inspectors under the Weights and Measures Act, 1878; and whether, in view of the unsatisfactory position which this creates, he will introduce legislation to rescind the Section which exempts scales which are the property of a Government Department from inspection.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: This exemption arises out of a judicial decision under the 1878 Act. All Government Departments are being asked to consider arrangements for the periodical inspection of their scales by inspectors of weights and measures. We propose to proceed in this way rather than by amending the legislation.

Mr. Shepherd: While this represents some progress, does not my right hon. Friend think that it is inadequate, since there is no power under the proposal for weights and measures inspectors to issue a summons against a Government Department for defrauding the public by using false scales?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I appreciate that the answer does not go as far as my hon. Friend desires, but it goes a very substantial way to meet his point.

Tinplate Exports

Mr. Peter Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the fact that importation of canned goods from Denmark has been drastically reduced for the year ending 1952, whether he will reduce the supplies of tinplate to Denmark by 3,000 tons, on account of the grave need of the home-canning industry for the supply of tinplate.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. Denmark is a most important supplier of essential foodstuffs and we cannot disregard her essential requirements. Tinplate for canning milk will be supplied up to the amount needed for the Ministry of Food's contracts we have already arranged to reduce the supply of other tinplate to Denmark in proportion to the estimated reduction in our imports of canned meat.

Mr. Roberts: Does that mean that there will not be exports from this country of tinplate for canned goods of a more luxury nature which, under the previous Government, were imported into this country at high prices?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It means that the tinplate exports have been reduced pari passu with the reductions which have had to be imposed on imports of canned goods.

Mr. P. Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade for an assurance that, in the year ending December, 1952, the supplies of tinplate exported to Egypt will be reduced by 3,000 tons and supplies to Iran by 5,000 tons from the amounts supplied to these countries, respectively, during the year ended 31st December, 1951, in view of the need for the consumption in the home-canning industry and the difficulties with which we are confronted caused by the countries concerned.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It is not our practice to disclose detailed figures of our allocations of tinplate to individual countries as this would weaken our bargaining position with other countries. But I can say that exports of tinplate to Persia have been eliminated and thus reduced by rather more than the figure quoted by my hon. Friend, while exports of tinplate to Egypt will be reduced by rather less than that suggested.

Mr. Roberts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that will be a very satisfactory answer to the growers of fruit and vegetables in this country who will need the tinplate during the summer in order to help our supplies?

Export Research Organisation

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much public money had been spent on the British Export Trade Research Organisation between its foundation in 1945 and its winding up last month.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Grants from public funds were made to the British Export Trade Research Organisation in each of the four financial years 1947–48 to 1950–51 and amounted to £134,216.

Mr. de Freitas: Is it not a fact that just when this organisation was allowed to die our Japanese competitors founded a Japanese export trade research organisation modelled on it and paid this organisation the compliment of electing its director-general as honorary vice-president? Is it not a shocking thing to allow this organisation to die?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I appreciate that the Japanese have established some export organisation of this kind. In my view B.E.T.R.O., as it was called in this country, did a good job of work, but the truth was that it was not supported by industry, who did not find sufficient use for its activities. It was never contemplated that it should be run as a Government-sponsored body irrespective of whether it was required.

Mr. de Freitas: Ought not the right hon. Gentleman to have encouraged industry to appreciate the value of this organisation, now that the sellers' market has ended, in helping it to get on with the exports job?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Although exporters may not have been greatly interested in the organisation at a time when exporting was easy because the export markets were clamouring for our goods, does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the most unsuitable time for bringing to an end an export research, organisation is the moment when all one's foreign markets are withering under one's eyes?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Matters of that kind did not escape me when I was discussing this subject with industry. In the last resort it must be for industry itself to judge what it requires in connection with the export market.

Film Exhibitors (Quota Defaults)

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of defaults on first-feature films under the Quota Act between September, 1950, and September, 1951; and, in particular, what was the number of defaults on first features by the Rank circuit and Associated British Cinemas circuit, respectively.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to the Board of Trade Journal of 9th February, 1952, which contains on page 264 a detailed report on the 1950–51 quota year. Of the 771 first feature defaults, 23 were by theatres in the A.B.C. circuit. There were no first feature defaults by theatres in the Odeon or the Gaumont-British circuits.

Mr. Wyatt: Is not this a shocking number of defaults in view of the fact that we are trying to help the British Film Industry? Why does not the Board of Trade prosecute far more vigorously in these cases, for which there is no excuse whatever?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As the hon. Gentleman knows, these matters are referred to the Films Council for consideration and the matter of whether a prosecution should be brought is then gone into. The fact that there is a default on the quota in the amount of films shown does not necessarily mean that an offence has been committed.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, at any rate in Scotland, the question of consumer choice is very much linked up with the question of default, and that this matter needs to be looked into, for it does not necessarily follow that films which appeal to an English audience also appeal to a Scottish audience?

Mr. Wyatt: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the members of the Films Council, who are film exhibitors, defaulted under the Quota Act from September, 1950, to September, 1951; and if he will remove such defaulters from membership of the Films Council.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Four of the members representing exhibitors on the Cinematograph Films Council are directors of exhibiting companies which, at some of the theatres owned by them, did not exhibit the number of British films required by the prescribed quota. This does not necessarily mean either that an offence has been committed or that, if one has been committed, the director could be held responsible. No decision has yet been taken about prosecutions for defaults in the 1950–51 quota year, and no circumstances have yet arisen which call for the removal of any member of the Council.

Mr. Wyatt: The President of the Board of Trade has just told us that prosecutions are decided by the Films Council. Is it not extraordinary, therefore, that four members of the Films Council should be people who are themselves liable to prosecution and do not prosecute themselves? Why are they not removed?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think it would be possible to find anyone interested in films exhibition in a large number of theatres where at no one in any circumstances was there a default in the quota. Although the point put by the hon. Member is attractive at first sight, it is not quite so powerful on reflection.

Mr. Wyatt: Why should we spend dollars to help put the British Film Industry on its feet if the Board of Trade's own regulations for the industry are defied by people from the industry who are appointed by the Board of Trade to see that the regulations are carried out?

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Is not the answer to all this to have a more realistic quota?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The quota has, of course, been reduced to a more realistic figure and should be adhered to.

Mr. I. Mikardo: Was the right hon. Gentleman really saying in his last answer but one that he cannot find any prominent exhibitor or a director of any prominent exhibiting firm to sit on the body which safeguards the operation of the quota who can be trusted not to violate the quota? If that is so, ought not there to be a real clean-up in the industry?

Mr. Thorneycroft: There is no question of that. There is no suggestion that these men have violated the quota or committed any offence under the Act.

Mr. Wyatt: There is.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the President of the Board of Trade what exemption he has granted to the Empire Cinema, Leicester Square, from the requirements of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1948.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: None, Sir.

Mr. Wyatt: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why this cinema only showed one British film last year and why it has not been prosecuted?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As the question of prosecutions is now under consideration, it will be better to leave it to be decided in another place.

Mr. Wyatt: Could we be given some assurance that this time those exhibitors on the Films Council who are themselves defaulters do not prevent any other defaulter from being prosecuted?

Mr. Speaker: We have spent long enough on these Questions. I think that we had better get on.

Firm, Brixton (Blackplate Allocation)

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will increase the allocation of blackplate to a Brixton firm, of which details have been sent to him, for the purpose of fulfilling dollar-earning contracts.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have arranged for discussions to take place with the firm in question on an increase in their allocation of blackplate to correspond with their actual dollar-earning sales.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this answer will be received with some satisfaction by this firm, which employs 200 people who have been working short-time, although the firm has gone out of its way to go ahead with its dollar contracts?

Census of Production and Distribution

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many census of production and census

of distribution forms are to be sent out by his Department in 1952; what is the average number of questions to be answered on each form; and what steps he is taking to simplify the questionnaire, consolidate questions, and economise in expenditure in the statistical department of his Department.

Mr. Sidney Marshall: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in connection with the census of production for 1951 applying to the leather goods trade, he will in future adopt a more simplified form than the present No. 172.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In 1952, no census of distribution forms will be issued. Census of production forms, which were normally sent out in January, will total about 275,000. Nearly 200,000 of these were sent to the smaller firms, and ask for only very limited information. The number of questions to be answered cannot readily be expressed as an average, but I will send my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) a typical census of production form.
I am carefully considering the future programme of the census. In the census of production to be taken in 1953, which was described in the Board of Trade Journal of 29th December, 1951, sampling will be introduced for the first time and the questions will be fewer than in any previous census.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have here a census of production form with 12 pages and 250 questions on it? If he sends out 275,000 of these forms, it is going to result in him receiving more than 65 million answers? What would my right hon. Friend be doing with 65 million answers? Could he abate this extravaganza and introduce some economy into the statistical departments?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The number of answers required varies between firm and firm and industry and industry. I quite agree that the total number added together would be rather difficult to deal with, but in principle this census of production provides useful information and it is on the whole better for Governments to proceed with some knowledge of the facts.

Decorated Pottery (Licences)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. C. S. TAYLOR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will state his reason for refusing to grant licences to permit the decoration of pottery for the home trade, despite the fact that licences are issued in limited quantities to those wishing to manufacture as well as to decorate pottery for this market;
(2) whether, in view of the shortage of decorators in the pottery industry, he will consider issuing licences to decorate pottery to skilled persons not wholly employed in this industry.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Taylor—Mr. Willey.

Mr. Taylor: Could I have an answer to Question No. 15?

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member but he did not rise.

Mr. Taylor: There was a tremendous noise and I did not hear you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for that. The hon. Member must be on the qui vive.

Mr. Taylor: I was on the qui vive, and was waiting for you to call my Question, but we could not hear any of the names called, certainly not in this part of the House, because of the noise proceeding from hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must remonstrate with those making the noise. Mr. Willey.

At end of Questions—

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the President of the Board of Trade desires to answer Question No. 15, and I have consented.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: With permission, I will answer this and Question No. 16 together.
The sale of decorated pottery on the home market is generally prohibited in order to promote exports. To this general ruling there are four main exceptions. Licences are granted for limited quantities of export rejects, fancy

ware which is difficult to export, pottery made by artist potters, and pottery decorated by individual decorators who can prove hardship.

Mr. Taylor: May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and also my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, for allowing these Questions to be answered?
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he really thinks that the small men would compete in any serious way with the big pottery manufacturers if they were given licences? Secondly, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the export rejects scheme is not being abused at the present time?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not mind how many people compete with the large potters. What I am concerned with is that all the decorators we can get hold of are used on export work.

Mr. Thomas Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea where we can get these rejects?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I understand they are obtainable in the shops, but one has to be lucky to get hold of them.

N.E. Trading Estates, Sunderland

Mr. Frederick Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking in view of the extensive redundancy in the factories administered by the North Eastern Trading Estates Company Limited.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 4th March.

Mr. Willey: Would the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to the special problem arising at the moment over redundancy in particular localities within the Development Areas?

Marine Polyp Trade, Essex

Mr. T. Driberg: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the commercial exploitation of the marine polyp, sertularia cuprisenea; and what has been the value, in any convenient recent period, of the export of this commodity to the dollar area or elsewhere.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The hon. Member is, I think, referring to a marine


animal found in estuarial waters and which resembles a small feathery fern. I understand that after drying and dyeing it is used for trimming millinery and for decorative purposes. I regret that I have no information about the export of this commodity as it is not separately distinguished in trade returns.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a thriving trade in this commodity or creature on the coast of Essex, and that many of the fishermen in my constituency are anxious to know whether it is more in the national interest that they should catch fish or that they should catch polyps, in view of the apparent export potential; and is he aware that this is one of those rare Questions which are genuinely seeking information?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I doubt whether this decision would have a dramatic effect on our economy in either case.

Pharmaceutical Products (Export Restrictions)

Mr. John Tilney: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that as a result of the present retrictions affecting the import of essential pharmaceutical products from the United Kingdom into Hong Kong a considerable volume of our export trade in these commodities is lost to Canada and countries from the Continent of Europe to whose exports the restrictions do not apply; and whether, in view of the consequent impairment on our permanent trading position in the Colony, he will take steps to secure that these restrictions are either made to apply equally to the same classes of goods irrespective of the country of origin, or else are suspended until such time as the object in imposing them can be achieved through effective international collaboration.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I should like to make it clear that the limitation of United Kingdom pharmaceutical exports, to which my hon. Friend refers, applies only to the very limited range of pharmaceutical products which we regard as being of strategic importance. I am aware that the purpose of our policy is to some extent being frustrated by supplies from other producing countries. We are seeking a greater measure of international collaboration which would obviate this, but I cannot agree to relax our own restrictions meanwhile.

Refrigeration Equipment (Imports)

Captain Robert Ryder: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of licences granted for the importation of refrigeration equipment during 1951; and what is the anticipated quota for 1952.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: During 1951 individual licences for the import of refrigeration equipment from dollar sources were issued to a total value of £557,710. This figure includes licences to the value of £142,413 which were issued under the Token Import Scheme. The remainder were for essential home uses or re-exports, individual applications having been considered on their merits. Refrigeration equipment from other sources was imported in 1951 under open general licence.
There are a number of changes in the import licensing arrangements for 1952. First, token import quotas have been reduced by value from 40 per cent. to 30 per cent. of the pre-war figures. Secondly, applications to import from dollar sources otherwise than through the Token Import Scheme will be considered against more stringent criteria. Thirdly, so far as imports from non-dollar sources are concerned, domestic refrigerators were removed from open general licence with effect from 11th March, 1952. The size of the quota has not yet been determined.

Captain Ryder: Will my right hon. Friend take note that there is a firm in this country which is writing to its clients advising them that, owing to greatly increased licences of tin from the Board of Trade, they are now able to supply domestic refrigerators of American origin in quantities which, they say, will be able to fill adequately all requirements?

Mr. Thorneycroft: My hon. and gallant Friend will see from my answer that stringent measures have been taken to reduce and, in many cases, cut out completely imports of this type.

Cotton Piece Goods (Exports)

Mr. W. A. Burke: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of woven cotton piece goods exported by the United Kingdom during the years 1950 and 1951.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The total was £100,297,000 in 1950 and £132,192,000 in 1951.

Mr. Burke: Does the Minister realise that as a result of the decision of the Australian Government, one-fifth of these imports have now gone down the drain? What does he propose to do to help the cotton trade to recoup itself?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am well aware of the effect of the Australian cuts on production of this character. The question is being considered at the present time, and discussions are going on with the Australian Government.

Anglo-Russia Trade

Mr. J. R. Bevins: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the substantial increase in the exports of raw rubber from the United Kingdom to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and if he will consider imposing a ceiling on such strategic exports.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am glad to have this opportunity of explaining the position since there have been recent Press statements which, no doubt inadvertently, gave a misleading impression
Exports of rubber to the U.S.S.R., whether from the United Kingdom or from Malaya have, since April of last year, been limited by export licensing to quantities related to our estimate of their normal civilian consumption. This is about the same rate of export as in 1950 before the development of large-scale fighting in Korea, and the rate is being kept constantly under review.
It is true that re-exports from the United Kingdom are greater now than they were in 1950. The explanation is that in 1950 the U.S.S.R. shipped 68,000 tons direct from Malaya and only 10,000 tons through the United Kingdom, whereas in 1951 the U.S.S.R. shipped 14,000 tons from Malaya and 42,000 tons through the United Kingdom. There are of course, fluctuations in monthly shipments within the annual rate.

Mr. Bevins: In view of the surprisingly high level of those exports during the last two months of this year, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to keep a close watch on the whole position?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir, certainly. The matter is being kept under very close watch. The normal flow of rubber will not be increased.

Mr. S. S. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that, in addition to the export of rubber from Malaya, the Russians are now getting rubber from Colombo and Ceylon?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have no evidence that leads me to suppose that there has been a great increase in the export of rubber to Russia.

Mr. George Jeger: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will initiate trade talks with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with a view to obtaining supplies of timber and grain.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In the case of plywood and of coarse grains, imports are arranged as necessary under separate contracts concluded between the appropriate Soviet organisation and the responsible Department of Her Majesty's Government. Supplies of timber other than plywood are a matter for the private importer.

Mr. Jeger: Is it not necessary to get the maximum imports of timber and grain from the U.S.S.R., and would not the Minister enter into negotiation with that country in order that trade talks might help to a better understanding between the Governments of both countries?

Mr. Thorneycroft: This trade is being conducted on a perfectly satisfactory basis at the moment.

Mr. Jeger: Can it be called satisfactory when the imports at present coming in from the U.S.S.R. are about 2½ to 3 times as much as our exports, thereby giving us an unfavourable balance of trade? Surely it would be better to have trade talks which would equate our exports and imports and lead not only to better trading relations but to better international relations?

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the President of the Board of Trade how far he is able to give details of private buying from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Statistics of imports from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on private account are to be found in the Trade and Navigation Accounts. These imports in 1951 involved a very large number of private transactions but did not include coarse grains and animal feeding stuffs, canned


fish, softwood and plywood, which were imported on public account. Softwood has now reverted to private trade.

Carpets (Exports to Australia)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of United Kingdom exports of carpets and rugs to the Commonwealth of Australia during the 12 months ended 29th February, 1952, or latest convenient date; the extent and percentum or ad valorem reduction of imports of carpets and rugs imposed by the Australian Government for the remainder of 1952; and the estimated loss of United Kingdom exports thereby entailed.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The value of carpets, rugs and mats exported from the United Kingdom to Australia during the 12 months ended 29th February, 1952, was £10.9 millions. Under the new Australian import restrictions these goods will be licensed at the rate of 20 per cent. of the value imported during the base year 1st July, 1950, to 30th June, 1951. As the quotas are not tied to particular countries it is not possible to say precisely what amount of United Kingdom carpets will continue to be imported into Australia, but the effect of the restrictions will undoubtedly be serious, for Australia has recently been taking almost half of our total exports of carpets.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the grave significance to the carpet manufacturing areas of the United Kingdom of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, namely, to Kidderminster and Kilmarnock, will my right hon. Friend endeavour to assist the industry by discussing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer what prospects there are for bringing carpets within the general provisions of the Douglas Report in order that they might have the Purchase Tax upon them abated to help production within the industry?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is, of course, a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the very important questions which are involved in the Question are exactly the kind of matter on which the researches of the Export Research Organisation, if the right hon. Gentleman had not so hastily brought it to an end, would have been

most useful? Is it not the case that the only way in which this damage can be minimised is by the provision of alternative markets? Is not that exactly what the research organisation was for?

Mr. Victor Yates: Is the Minister aware that the Ministry of Labour announced in a review this week that 465 people have already been discharged, mainly from the carpet industry, as well as from the motor car industry? Is it not going to be a very grave situation for this industry? It certainly is not in accordance with what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) promised at the last General Election.

Washington Declaration (Balance of Payments)

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade what measures have been taken by the United States authorities to implement the Ten-Point Washington Declaration of September, 1949, signed by representatives of the United States, Canadian and British Governments, by which the United States and Canadian Governments undertook to examine ways and means by which the United Kingdom would be enabled to earn more dollars.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It would be difficult to cover so wide and important a subject as this by way of Question and answer, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for emphasising, by calling attention to the terms of the joint communiqué, that a balance of international payments can be achieved only if both the creditor and debtor nations contribute to a solution.

New Factories (Location)

Mr. Stephen Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to direct industry to those areas in which work is most needed.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As the hon. Member will be aware, we have no powers to direct industry to a particular location, but it is the policy of the Board of Trade to encourage firms seeking new capacity to set up in those areas most in need of additional industry.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the continuing rise in unemployment since the right hon. Gentleman took office and the


prospects of its rapid spread, will he take more vigorous steps in the direction I have suggested?

Mr. Richard Fort: In view of the decline in the textile industry since the statement made by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) last autumn, will my right hon. Friend try to bring new industries into the textile areas in Lancashire?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Hon. Members will appreciate that there are difficulties in the way of new industrial development, not only of policy by the Board of Trade but of shortage of steel and building capacity.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has not permitted the erection of the advance factory on the Bede Trading Estate, Jarrow, to be proceeded with.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The reason is the same as given in the answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) on 28th February, namely, that with the present shortage of steel and the need to restrict capital investment we should not be justified in reversing the decision of the previous Government, taken early in 1951, that the building of factories in the Development Areas in advance of demand should be deferred indefinitely.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the Minister aware that his Government are supposed to do much better than the last Government and that his answer is therefore most unsatisfactory? Will he not look at the matter again?

Asparagus Imports

Mr. Rupert De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state the total tonnage of imported asparagus which the Government intend to restrict importing into this country between mid-April and end of June this year; and whether he will consider increasing the protective duty on imported asparagus.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) on 28th February and 6th March.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend not realise that the position was not then made clear? Can we not have a clear statement?

Mr. Thorneycroft: This matter is still being considered as part of a comprehensive tariff application by the National Farmers' Union on horticultural products.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is thoroughly unsatisfactory?

U.K.-Argentina Discussions

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the President of the Board of Trade what trade talks with the Argentine his Department are conducting.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: rose—

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: On a point of order. We cannot hear a word.

Mr. Speaker: There is a complaint that Members on the back benches cannot hear the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman speaks into the microphone, he will find his voice will carry better.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Discussions on trade matters are due under the Agreement on Trade and Payments concluded with Argentina on 27th June, 1949, and the protocol to this agreement of 23rd April, 1951. As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) on 7th March, they will be conducted by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Buenos Aires.

Mr. Jeger: Does that answer mean that the Board of Trade have handed over negotiations regarding meat, not to private traders, but to Her Majesty's Ambassador, who is connected with the Foreign Office and not with the Board of Trade? Where do the private meat traders of Britain come into this picture?

Mr. Thorneycroft: These negotiations are being conducted in a perfectly normal manner, and I think, if I may say so, better conducted than in the heat of great political controversy.

Mr. Jeger: Is it normal now for trade negotiations to be conducted by the Foreign Office, when pledges were given and promises were made that these matters were to be handed back to the private traders?

Mr. Thorneycroft: We do not decide in advance of these negotiations how the meat is to be bought. It is a perfectly ordinary inter-Governmental negotiation.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the great importance of these negotiations to the Lancashire cotton trade?

Mr. Jeger: Can we have an answer whether the private meat traders of this country turned down the question of themselves entering into negotiation with Argentina about the import of meat into this country?

Mr. Speaker: That does not seem to be the Question on the paper, which asks what talks the right hon. Gentleman's Department is conducting. That seems a separate question.

Furniture and Textiles, Scotland (Employment)

Mr. A. C. Manuel: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to rectify the unemployment and short-time working now becoming evident in the furniture and textile industries in Scotland.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: We are aware that there is some unemployment and short-time working in these industries in Scotland and elsewhere, and are watching the position closely in consultation with the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people in my constituency and throughout Scotland are becoming increasingly anxious because of rising unemployment and especially short-time working? Is he further aware that if short-time working were calculated in man-hours, in my opinion it would show a further 15 per cent. increase in the unemployment figures for Scotland?

Mr. Thorneycroft: We are watching the position closely.

Mr. Arthur Holt: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that in Bolton this week 10 cotton spinning mills are completely shut down, with no production, and that in these areas the mills largely make the finer quality of yarns which go into the better quality of fabrics that, under the D scheme, will now be taxed for the first time for some period? Will he therefore give serious consideration to cancelling the D scheme so far as it affects the textile industry?

Mr. Thorneycroft: This Question refers to furniture and textiles in Scotland.

Exports to America (Dollar Value)

Mr. Cyril Bence: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to offset the effect of a United States recession consequent on the decline in the value of the dollar.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the current falling off in United States consumer demand. I am sure that we can rely on the determination of British exporters to do their best to meet the difficulties presented by temporary fluctuations of this kind. The Government will continue to give all appropriate support to manufacturers producing for export.

Mr. Bence: In view of the serious sacrifices which the present Government are imposing upon the people of this country, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be more advisable to concentrate our efforts to a greater extent on the development of our Colonies and our Commonwealth in order to provide not only a more secure market for the future, but to develop those countries in order to provide us with raw materials and food instead of concentrating such great efforts on what is a very precarious market?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I appreciate the desire of the hon. Gentleman to promote Imperial trade, but it goes rather wide of this Question.

Mr. de Freitas: Would it not be a great advantage, in attempting to boost our exports to the United States, if the President of the Board of Trade had not let the British Export Trade Research Organisation down?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the recession in trade with the U.S.A., will the right hon. Gentleman take more seriously the possibility of increasing trade with the U.S.S.R., and will he bear in mind that there is considerable anxiety in Scotland that there should be renewed trade in Scottish herrings?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is a different question.

Magnesium Factory, Burnley (Use)

Mr. Burke: asked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,


if, in order to relieve unemployment in Burnley, he will put into use the Magnesium Elektron factory at Lowerhouse which the Government built at a cost of over £4 million, during the war and which is now standing idle.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): This was one of the factories erected to meet war-time requirements of magnesium. Present requirements are being met from other sources much more economically than would be possible at Lowerhouse, and as things are at present we do not need the output of the plant.

Mr. Burke: Does the Minister realise that this factory is situated in an area of great unemployment, that hundreds could be absorbed in this manufacture, and that it is an adequate substitute for steel in many cases? Why should we import it when the raw materials are at hand in this country?

Mr. Hopkinson: This factory is being managed on a care and maintenance basis for use in time of war. If we were to try to put it back into production now, it would cost about £1 million and the production would be far less economic than other sources of production. There are also difficulties in regard to supplies of chlorine and magnesia.

Mr. Burke: Are there no vested interests behind this factory which are keeping it idle?

Mr. Hopkinson: Not so far as I am aware.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a far better way of treating unemployment in Burnley would be to cancel all Purchase Tax on Manchester textiles for the next 12 months?

Oral Answers to Questions — DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT (CONVICTIONS)

Mr. Norman Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were convicted in 1949, 1950 and 1951, of offences in respect of dangerous drugs.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): The number of convictions under the Dangerous Drugs Acts for the years 1949

and 1950 were 159 and 147, respectively. The provisional figure for 1951 is 234.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the grave significance of the increase in 1950 and 1951, is the Minister satisfied that everything possible is being done to deal with this modern craze?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes, Sir. I believe that some of the increase in convictions is due to increased vigilance on the part of the Police, Customs and Dangerous Drugs Inspectorate. However, I should make it quite clear that there is still no sign of regular, organized, widespread illicit traffic.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRIVING OFFENCES (DRUNKENNESS)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions were made in magistrates' courts in 1951 for driving offences while under the influence of drink; and in how many cases sentences of imprisonment were imposed or driving licences suspended.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Figures are available only for the first nine months of 1951. During this period there were 1,956 convictions for this offence in magistrates' courts. Sentences of imprisonment without the option of a fine were imposed in 129 of these cases, and the offender was disqualified from holding a driving licence in 1,861 cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS (SUPERVISION)

Mr. Eric Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the number of inspectors employed by his Department is inadequate to provide proper supervision over experiments carried out on living animals, and thus ensure that no suffering is caused to such animals; and if he will increase the number of inspectors.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The present establishment of inspectors under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, is, in my view, adequate for the proper supervision of experiments to which the Act applies.

Mr. Johnson: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend if he really suggests


that visits to 1,232 out of 1,779,215 experiments carried out on live animals provides an adequate safeguard? Would he not further agree that his inspection would be better done by veterinary surgeons rather than by doctors?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Dealing with the first part of the supplementary question, I think the important thing is that the inspector can visit a laboratory at any time without warning and demand to inspect the animals and to see notes of the experiments. I should like notice of the second part of the supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MARKET STALLAGES (RENTS)

Mr. Richard Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take powers to control the rents charged to stall holders in covered markets with a view to preventing the exploitation of these people.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Stallages in markets maintained under a public or local Act or under a charter are subject either to my approval or to statutory limits, or to the common law doctrine that such charges must be reasonable. If the hon. Member has other charges in mind, perhaps he would be good enough to let me have details of them.

Mr. Adams: Is the Secretary of State aware that in London in particular there are many covered markets in the hands of private landlords, that these rents are going up almost every week and contributing to the rising cost of living, and will he do something about this?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will let me have details. I will, with pleasure, look into them.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT (HYPNOTISM)

Mr. John Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to control the use of hypnotism as a form of public entertainment.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have no power to control such performances.

Mr. Rodgers: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the public disquiet on this subject, and that several young people have had to spend periods in hospital as a result of the practice of hypnotism on the stage? Could he look into this matter and see if the public could be protected?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will certainly look into anything that my hon. Friend can put before me. I am not satisfied at the moment that it is desirable to have legislation and I must say, as the House will realise, that it would be impossible to find time for legislation during this Session.

Dr. Barnett Stross: But is the Home Secretary not aware that a Private Bill is attempting to bring forward legislation in a very narrow field, and in view of what he has heard and knows himself in his Department, will he not assure the House that he will give every possible assistance to providing legislation of this kind?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am prepared to consider it, but I cannot go further than that.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Training and Recruiting Films

Mr. Gordon Walker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an assurance that no diminution in the showing of the films in question will follow his decision to use locally-owned projectors for the showing of films for the purpose of recruiting and training civil defence and fire service personnel.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is too soon to estimate the precise effect of the new arrangements, but every effort will be made to ensure that such film showings as are essential for recruitment and training purposes shall be given.

Mr. Gordon Walker: When will it be possible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give an answer? If he will let me know, I will put down a Question.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the right hon. Gentleman will keep in touch, I shall certainly do what I can on my side.

Preparedness

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what orders have been issued to


civil defence officers to bring their organisations to a state of preparedness.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Since the coming into force of the Civil Defence Act at the end of 1948, a series of circulars have been issued to local authorities containing information and guidance on various aspects of civil defence. The build up of civil defence is a continuing process and no special orders have been issued in the sense of bringing civil defence services to a state of specified readiness by any particular date.

Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that he has enough recruits now to read these circulars?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am never satisfied that I have enough recruits. I hope that every hon. Member will assist me to get more recruits. I am very glad, however, that over the last few months, since we have had the campaign, we have had a considerable addition in the number of recruits coming in.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOL CROSSING PATROLS

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the results of the discussions with local authorities on the method of financing traffic wardens for schoolchildren.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The question of school crossing patrols is to be discussed between the local authority associations and the Departments concerned on 25th March next.

Oral Answers to Questions — REMAND HOMES (YOUNG CHILDREN)

Mr. Somerville Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that children of eight years of age are admitted to remand homes for minor offences, such as petty thefts or non-attendance at school, or even on a statement by parents that they are beyond control; that in these remand homes these children consort with adolescents who are becoming hardened criminals; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this situation.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: In some areas, junior and senior boys are accommodated in separate remand homes or as separate groups in the same home, and arrangements of this kind are encouraged where practicable. The staff of remand homes exercise close supervision, and the Remand Home Rules require that any child likely to have a bad influence over others is to be kept in separation. The Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Bill, if passed into law, will enable local authorities to arrange for children under 12 to be sent to reception centres provided under the Children Act instead of to remand homes.

Mr. Hastings: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise the harm that is at present being done to these very young children, who look upon the elder delinquents with whom they associate as heroes?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have said that wherever possible the attempt is made to keep them separate, and where that has not been practicable because of the small numbers and the nature of the premises, the timetable and supervision arrangements are usually designed to secure substantial separation of the older from the younger boys. The hon. Gentleman is, of course, Chairman of the Committee of Stamford House, the largest remand home, which is provided by the L.C.C.; and if he can give me any suggestions for improving the procedure, as we are all anxious to do, I shall be very happy to consider them.

Mr. Assheton: Is it really the case that schoolchildren of eight years of age are sent to remand homes for non-attendance at school?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will look into that point.

Mr. Hastings: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the statements contained in my Question are in many cases true, and will he not consider the desirability at once of sending out a circular to those concerned to encourage them to carry out the suggestions which he has already made to the House?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: In fairness to those who have control, I should like to say that they are doing their best to carry that out. As the hon. Gentleman


knows, the Remand Home Rules require care to be taken to keep in separation any child who is likely to exercise a bad influence. I will, however, consider the hon. Member's suggestion. The end is one that we all desire, and I will consider any method of improvement.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRUELTY TO WILD ANIMALS (REPORT)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Cruelty to Wild Animals.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The recommendations of the Committee about deer poaching are substantially implemented in the Poaching of Deer (Scotland) Bill, which has recently received a Second Reading in another place. The other recommendations are still under consideration.

Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there is a large number of people, both for and against the Report, who are exceedingly anxious that one or other of its recommendations, apart from the deer protection, should be brought into effect? Will he, therefore, expedite consideration of the matter?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will certainly continue and expand the consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHELL-FISH INDUSTRY

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many people were employed in the crabbing industries in 1924, 1938, 1945, 1951 and now.

Sir T. Dugdale: I regret that this information is not available.

Major Tufton Beamish: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the last Government delighted in sending tinplate, which was so badly needed in this country, to the Soviet Union in order that they could send us their crab, which we did not in the least need?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Indian Hemp, East Anglia

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the purpose of the

experimental growing of Indian hemp in East Anglia; and what precautions will be taken to ensure that the husks and dried flowers do not fall into the hands of those interested in the production of reefer cigarettes.

The Minister of Agriculture (Major Sir Thomas Dugdale): Hemp is being grown experimentally by the Agricultural Research Council Unit of Experimental Agronomy as part of its research into new crops. The scale of production is extremely small and I understand that the hemp heads are destroyed. It is an offence under the Dangerous Drugs Acts to be in possession of the dried flowering, fruiting tops of Indian hemp without a licence from the Home Office.

Mr. Dodds: Who is responsible for seeing that the heads are burnt or do not get into undesirable hands?

Sir T. Dugdale: The Unit of Experimental Agronomy are responsible. They have three plots in different parts of the country, and of only one-eighth of an acre each.

Dispossessions (Bad Husbandry)

Mr. Anthony Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many farmers were dispossessed on grounds of bad husbandry in 1951; how many are under supervision now and how many have been under supervision for more than a year.

Sir T. Dugdale: Orders to terminate the occupancy of 70 farmers on grounds of bad husbandry became effective in 1951. On 28th February, 1952, 1,588 farmers were under supervision, 1,014 of whom had been under supervision for more than a year.

Mr. Hurd: Do these figures suggest to my right hon. and gallant Friend that the time has come to revise the whole of this procedure?

Sir T. Dugdale: I am looking into the whole position very carefully.

Road Haulage Charges

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with long-distance transport charges throughout the country, he will make representations to the Transport Commission to enable some help to be given to


horticulturists, especially fruit and vegetable growers, in the instances where, with the increased road-haulage charges, the cost of transport is higher than the price obtained for the commodities grown.

Brigadier R. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will consult with the British Transport Commission with a view to fixing reduced scales of charges for the long-distance transport of fruit and vegetables.

Sir T. Dugdale: The Transport Act, 1947, provides adequate machinery for considering representations about charges and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to approach the Commission.

Mr. De la Bère: How can a producer continue to produce food for which he does not get as much as he has to pay by way of transport charges? Surely my right hon. and gallant Friend will energetically set about trying to help these people.

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. Speaker: That sounded more like an exhortation than a question.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Minister advise his hon. and right hon. Friends to support us on this side when we vote this afternoon against the petrol tax, and so help the hon. Member in the difficulty to which his Question refers?

Mortgage Corporation Loans (Interest)

Sir Leslie Plummer: asked the Minister of Agriculture what additional annual cost to the agricultural industry will result from the increase in the interest rate of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation to 5½per cent.

Mr. A. J. Champion: asked the Minister of Agriculture the estimated yearly cost to the agricultural industry of the increase in the interest rate charged by the Agricultural Mortgage Corpora-

tion, from 4½ per cent. to the recently announced figure of 5½per cent.

Sir T. Dugdale: If new loans continue to be made by the Corporation at the current rate of about £6 million a year, the recent increase in the lending rate from 4¾ per cent. to 5½ per cent. would result in an additional annual cost to borrowers of £45,000 in a full year. The whole of this additional cost is not necessarily borne by the agricultural industry, as the Corporation has regard only to the security offered, and does not require its loans to be applied solely to agricultural purposes.

Sir L. Plummer: What saving will be effected by the Treasury as a result of this increase in the interest charge?

Sir T. Dugdale: That is another question.

Mr. Champion: Will the rate of interest follow the recent rise in the Bank rate?

Mr. H. Hynd: When the Minister says that the whole of the £45,000 will not necessarily be borne by the agricultural industry, does he mean that it will be passed on to the consumer?

Sir T. Dugdale: No, Sir. Loans from the Corporation are based on land, and it is not necessary that all the money so lent will be used in agriculture. In reply to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), the new rate does not apply to existing loans or to loans offered before 26th February, when the new rate was announced.

Mr. F. J. Erroll: Because of the higher rates now being imposed, could not the conditions of lending be somewhat relaxed?

Sir T. Dugdale: That is an entirely different question to the one on the Paper, but I will have it looked into.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It is half-past Three.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House the business for next week?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 24TH MARCH—Supply [8th allotted Day] Report stage of Navy, Army and Air Estimates and of Civil Supplementary Estimates which were not debated in Committee of Supply yesterday.
These are Class II Votes relating to Foreign Service, Commonwealth Services and Colonial Office.
At 9.30 p.m. the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Estimates and Supplementary Estimates required before the end of the financial year.
Further progress will be made with:
Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Bill.
Export Guarantees Bill.
TUESDAY, 25TH MARCH—Second Reading:
Consolidated Fund Bill.
Debate on Education.
Consideration of Opposition Motion relating to increased Food Prices Orders following the arrangement made across the Floor of the House last Thursday.
WEDNESDAY, 26TH MARCH—Committee and remaining stages:
Consolidated Fund Bill.
Debate on the State of the Textile Industry.
Second Reading:
Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, which is usually a formal stage.
THURSDAY, 27TH MARCH—Second Reading:
National Health Service Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money resolution.
FRIDAY, 28TH MARCH—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions arising out of

business? There are two Statutory Instruments, Nos. 489 and 490, dealing with the utility goods revocation and utility goods maximum prices Orders. Would it be possible to arrange for these to come on at an earlier hour than if they were taken as Prayers after 10 o'Clock, as they concern very important matters which were raised in the Budget? Second, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Opposition would like to ask for a day for a debate on the Lisbon conversations before very long?

Mr. Crookshank: Taking the second question first, I presume that it will be discussed through the usual channels. In regard to Orders Nos. 489 and 490, I am not sure whether a debate on the state of the textile industry would not cover that point. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look into that, as he has put that subject down for debate on Wednesday. I understand that it is also possible that these Orders would come within the ambit of the Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill. I recognise that they are very important measures.

Mr. Attlee: I understand that they would come within the scope of the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, but their detailed consideration, I think, must come on the Orders and they go a great deal beyond the general question of the textile industry.

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, I will certainly look into the matter. I recognise that they are very important.

Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: Would it not be more in keeping with the principles of democracy if the Government were to allow a day before Thursday for a debate on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of a number of my hon. Friends? Could they not give the Government Whips a holiday on the allotted day rather than try to ride rough-shod over the will of Parliament and the wishes of the people?

[That this House is of the opinion that Parliament should proceed no further with the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill, in view of the additional hardship it would inflict upon people with small incomes and the harm it would cause to the nation's health.]

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: Could the right hon. Gentleman arrange to issue a White


Paper dealing with the changes the Government have made in National Health Service charges since the Bill to be taken on Thursday was published? That would be of great value to the House before the debate.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any further information this week about further debates on the large arrears of reports and annual accounts of nationalised industries, notably the three nationalised fuel and power industries?

Mr. Crookshank: My hon. Friend will recollect that that matter was raised last week, and that I said it could perhaps be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: If it be that there have been some changes in Government intentions as to the actual provisions in the National Health Service Bill, which the Press has said is the case, would it not be right that Parliament should have a White Paper or an advance Ministerial statement showing what those modifications are? Otherwise, the whole House will be at a disadvantage in debating the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I must request a reply from the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know what idea the right hon. Gentleman has about his functions, but this certainly is related to the business for next week, Thursday in particular, and the House is entitled to an answer.

Mr. Crookshank: It is not necessary for me to deal with every rumour that appears in the Press on every kind of topic. The Second Reading debate will take place on Thursday, as I have said, and I leave it at that.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman is not only Leader of the House of Commons, he is also the Minister of Health. He knows whether these statements are untrue rumours or not and I do say that he either ought to tell the House they are untrue rumours, or give us some advance information as to what these modifications are to be. I ask him in both capacities—as Leader of the House of Commons, where he has a duty to the House as a whole, and as Minister of Health as well—to give us that information.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman is very clever at fishing inquiries, but on this occasion I do not propose to satisfy him.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Is the Leader of House aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will queue up on Thursday next to express their views? Could the time be extended by at least an hour on that day?

Mr. Crookshank: If that matter is raised through the usual channels, it can be discussed.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Following the difficulties in which the House found itself last week arising out of the Statutory Instruments dealing with food prices, the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that the Post Office charges and new Regulations were not discussed. Will he give the House time to discuss those very comprehensive Regulations, which were to be discussed last week at the same time as the food prices Orders?

Mr. Crookshank: I did not receive any representations on that point through the usual channels, and I am afraid that it is not in my mind. If that concerns Regulations which were time-expired, owing to the date having gone by, it was not suggested that any special procedure should be adopted in that case. But, of course, there are other opportunities to debate Post Office charges, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's constant reiteration of "the usual channels" that questions put other than through the usual channels are not worthy of his consideration?

Mr. Crookshank: Not at all. But on this particular point a very technical difficulty arose last week, which was not within the experience of any of us. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was present or not, but it was a matter about which none of us had any prior knowledge or experience, and we tried to settle it in the best way and at once. At that time no question arose about Post Office charges, and that was why I did not have it particularly in mind.

Mr. Hobson: Is the Leader of the House aware that these are the first


Regulations in the history of the Post Office which it will be competent for the House to discuss, as heretofore most of them had merely to be laid?

Mr. R. T. Paget: Is not it a fact that when the Government brings forward important proposals the House is entitled to have notice of them before debating them? And if those proposals are to be materially changed, may we take it from the Leader of the House that the debate on Thursday will be adjourned and that we shall have a further opportunity of discussing any new principles brought forward?

Mr. Harold Davies: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the promise made by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey), before the Recess, he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the problem of Malaya before we rise for the Easter Recess? There is need in the House for information.

Mr. Crookshank: That seems to me one of the subjects which, if there is a real demand for it, could very well be brought up on a Supply Day.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to put a question to the Leader of the House? It is in connection with the debate on education next Tuesday. I wished to ask whether education in Scotland—as it comes under a separate Department, under the Secretary of State—could have a day to itself?

Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that that question will receive an answer in due course, but we cannot go on discussing the business for next week indefinitely. We have a lot to do.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. Is not it a little unusual for questions on business to be curtailed? There were not so many hon. Members, so far as I could see, who were desiring to put further questions; there were only about two. One very important ambiguity about next week's business remains unresolved. With respect, I should have thought it might be helpful to the House to have the questions answered at the usual time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is in error if he thinks that only a few hon. Members rose. I can see a great number of hon. Members from here. It is quite common when, in the opinion of the Chair, questions on business are unduly prolonged, to bring them to a conclusion after a reasonable time. The House has had a great number of supplementary questions on business, and I think we must push on.

Mr. Silverman: Further to that point of order, and again with the utmost respect, Sir. The function of the Chair in relation to supplementary questions at Question time is obviously in the interests of the House, because Question time is strictly limited, and we have to stop at half-past three. But there is no limitation beyond half-past three, and surely the House is itself the best judge of when it has sufficiently asked the questions which it wishes to ask about business.

Mr. Speaker: I have heard enough of that point of order to catch the drift of it, and the fact is that the House has other business before it besides questions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS REPORT [11th March]

Resolutions reported.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put forthwith on each Resolution pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions).

[For particulars of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1307–1324.]

First Resolution—Hydrocarbon Oils (Customs and Excise)—read a Second time.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 308; Noes, 286.

Division No. 39.]
AYES
[3.48 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Hollis, M. C.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Alport, C. J. M.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hope, Lord John


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hopkinson, Henry


Amory, Heathcote (Tiverton)
Davidson, Viscountess
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Anstruther-Gray, Maj. W. J.
De la Bére, R.
Horobin, I. M.


Arbuthnot, John
Deedes, W. F.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Howard, Grevillle (St. Ives)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Donner, P. W.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Baker, P. A. D.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hulbert, Wing Comdr. N. J.


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hurd, A. R.


Baldwin, A. E.
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Banks, Col. C.
Drewe, C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Barber, A. P. L.
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T.(Richmond)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Barlow, Sir John
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Baxter, A. B.
Duthie, W. S.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Jennings, R.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Erroll, F. J.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fell, A.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Finlay, Graeme
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fisher, Nigel
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Kaberry, D.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Birch, Nigel
Fort, R
Lambton, Viscount


Bishop, F. P.
Foster, John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Black, C. W.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Bossom, A. C.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Leather, E. H. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gags, C. H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollock)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Braine, B. R.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Braithwaite Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gammans, L. D.
Lindsay, Martin


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Linstead, H. N.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
George. Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Llewellyn, D. T.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. G. (King's Norton)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Godber, J. B.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Gough, C. F. H.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Bullard, D. G.
Gower, H. R.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Graham. Sir Fergus
Low, A. R. W.


Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Grimston, Hon, John (St. Albans)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Harden, J. R. E.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Carson, Hon. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
McAdden, S. J.


Cary, Sir Robert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
McCullum, Major D.


Channon, H.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McCorquodale, Rt Hon. M. S.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
McKibbin, A. J.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maclay, Hon. John


Cole, Norman
Hay, John
Maclean, Fitzroy


Colegate, W. A.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Heath, Edward
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hill, Mrs E. (Wythenshawe)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Markham, Maj. S. F.


Crouch, R. F.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Marples, A. E.




Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Summers, G. S.


Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Redmayne, M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Maude, Angus
Remnant, Hon. P.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Maudling, R.
Renton, D. L. M.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)
Teeling, W.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Robertson, Sir David
Thomas, Rt Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Mellor, Sir John
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Molson, A. H. E.
Robson-Brown, W.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Roper, Sir Harold
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (M'nmouth)


Morrison John (Salisbury)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Russell, R. S.
Tilney, John


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D
Touche, G. C.


Nicholls, Harmar
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Turner, H. F. L.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Turton, R. H.


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Schofield, Lt.-Col W. (Rochdale)
Vane, W. M. F.


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Scott, R. Donald
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr R.
Vosper, D. F.


Oakshott, H. D.
Shepherd, William
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.J.


Odey, G. W.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Snadden, W. McN.
Watkinson, H. A.


Osborne, C.
Soames, Capt. C.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Partridge, E.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Wellwood, W.


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Speir, R. M.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Stanley, Capt Hon. Richard
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Wills, G.


Pitman, I. J.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Powell, J. Enoch
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Storey, S.



Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Profumo, J. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Brigadier Mackeson and


Raikes, H. V.
Studholme, H. G.
Mr. Butcher.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Champion, A. J.
Finch, H. J.


Adams, Richard
Chapman, W. D.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Albu, A. H.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Follick, M.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Clunie, J.
Foot, M. M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cooks, F. S.
Forman, J. C.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Coldrick, W.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Collick, P. H.
Freeman, John (Watford)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cook, T. F.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Awbery, S. S.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gaitskell, Rt Hon. H. T. N.


Ayles, W. H.
Cove, W. G.
Gibson, C. W.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Glanville, James


Baird, J.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Balfour, A.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)


Beattie, J.
Daines, P.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Grey, C. F.


Bence, C. R.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Benn, Wedgwood
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Griffiths, Rt Hon. James (Llanelly)


Benson, G.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Beswick, F.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Grimond, J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Blenkinsop, A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)


Blyton, W. R.
Deer, G.
Hamilton, W. W.


Boardman, H.
Delargy, H. J.
Hannan, W.


Bottomley Rt. Hon A. G.
Dodds, N. N.
Hardy, E. A.


Bowden, H. W.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hargreaves, A,


Bowen, E. R.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Bowles, F. G.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hastings, S.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hayman, F. H.


Brockway, A. F.
Edelman, M.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Herbison, Miss M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hobson, C. R.


Burke, W. A.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Holman, P.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Holt, A. F.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Ewart, R.
Houghton, Douglas


Callaghan, L. J.
Fernyhough, E.
Hoy, J. H.


Carmichael, J.
Field, W. J.
Hubbard, T. F.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fienburgh, W.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)







Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moyle, A.
Sparks, J. A.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mulley, F. W.
Steele, T.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, J. D.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Nally, W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
O'Brien, T.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oldfield, W. H.
Swingler, S. T.


Janner, B.
Oliver, G. H.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Orbach, M.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Oswald, T.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Padley, W. E.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pannell, Charles
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pargiter, G. A.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Parker, J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Keenan, W.
Paton, J.
Timmons, J.


Kenyon, C.
Pearson, A.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Peart, T. F.
Tomney, F.


King, Dr. H. M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Turner-Samuels, M.


Kinley, J.
Poole, C. C.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Porter, G.
Usborne, H. C.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Viant, S. P.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Price, Philips (Gloucester, W.)
Wade, D. W.


Lewis, Arthur
Proctor, W. T.
Wallace, H. W.


Lindgren, G. S.
Pryde D. J.
Watkins, T. E.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Logan, D. G.
Rankin, John
Weitzman, D.


Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Reeves, J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


MacColl, J. E.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wells, William (Walsall)


McGhee, H. G.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
West, D. G.


McGovern, J.
Rhodes, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


McInnes, J.
Richards, R.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


McLeavy, F.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caenarvonshire)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ross, William
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Royle, C.
Williams, David (Neath)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Manuel, A. C.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, Rt. Hn. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Mayhew, C. P.
Short, E. W.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Mellish, R. J.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Messer, F.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Mitchison, G. R.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Monslow, W.
Slater, J.
Wyatt, W. L.


Morley, R.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Yates, V. F.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Snow, J. W.



Mort, D. L.
Sorensen, R. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Holmes.

Second Resolution—Entertainments (Excise)—read a Second time.


Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."


The House divided; Ayes, 313; Noes, 281.

Division No. 40.]
AYES
[4.0 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Baxter, A. B.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Brooman-White, R. C.


Anstruther-Gray, Maj. W. J.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Browne, Jack (Govan)


Arbuthnot, John
Bennett, William (Woodside)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Bullard, D. G.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Birch, Nigel
Bullock, Capt. M.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bishop, F. P.
Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Black, C. W.
Burden, F. F. A.


Baker, P. A. D.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bossom, A. C.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Baldwin, A. E.
Bowen, E. R.
Carson, Hon. E.


Banks, Col. C.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cary, Sir Robert


Barber, A. P. L.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Channon, H.


Barlow, Sir John
Braine, B. R.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.







Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Horobin, I. M.
Osborne, C.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Partridge, E.


Cole, Norman
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Colegate, W. A.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hulbert, Wing Comdr. N. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Craddock, Beresferd (Spelthorne)
Hurd, A. R.
Pilkington, Capt R. A.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Pitman, I. J.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hutchison Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchison James (Scotstoun)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Crouch, R. F.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Profumo, J. D.


Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)
Jennings, R.
Raikes, H. V.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Redmayne, M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Renton, D. L. M.


De la Bére, R.
Kaberry, D.
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Robertson, Sir David


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambton, Viscount
Robson-Brown, W.


Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Donner, P. W.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Roper, Sir Harold


Doughty, C. J. A.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Leather, E. H. C.
Russell, R. S.


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Drewe, C.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lindsay, Martin
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Duthie, W. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Scott, R. Donald


Erroll, F. J.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. G. (King's Norton)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fell, A.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Shepherd, William


Finlay, Graeme
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Low, A. R. W.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Fort, R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Snadden, W. McN.


Foster, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Soames, Capt C.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McAdden, S. J.
Speir, R. M.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McCallum, Major D.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Gage, C. H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McKibbin, A. J.
Stevens, G. P.


Gammans, L. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maclay, Hon. John
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


George, Rt. Hon. Major G. Lloyd
Maclean, Fitzroy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Glyn, Sir Ralph
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Storey, S.


Godber, J. B.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Gough, C. F. H.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Studholme, H. G.


Gower, H. R.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Summers, G. S.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Sutcliffe, L.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Grimond, J.
Markham, Maj. S. F.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.>


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marples, A. E.
Teeling, W.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Harden, J. R. E.
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maude, Angus
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maudling, R.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Mellor, Sir John
Tilney, John


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Molson, A. H. E.
Touche, G. C.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Turner, H. F. L


Hay, John
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Turton, R. H.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Heath, Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nicholls, Harmar
Vosper, D. F.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Wade, D. W.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nugent, G. R. H
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Oakshott, H. D.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hollis, M. C.
Odey, G. W.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Holt, A. F.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hope, Lord John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wellwood, W.


Hopkinson, Henry
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
White, Baker (Canterbury)







Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Wills, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Brigadier Mackeson and


Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Wood, Hon. R.
Mr. Butcher.


Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)






NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Field, W. J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Adams, Richard
Fienburgh, W.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Albu, A. H.
Finch, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Follick, M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Foot, M. M.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Forman, J. C.
Manuel, A. C.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Mayhew, C. P.


Ayles, W. H.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mellish, R. J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Messer, F.


Baird, J.
Gibson, C. W.
Mikardo, Ian


Balfour, A.
Glanville, James
Mitchison, G. R.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Gordon-Walker, Rt Hon. P. C.
Monslow, W.


Beattie, J.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Morley, R.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Bence, C. R.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Morrison, Rt Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Benn, Wedgwood
Grey, C. F.
Mort, D. L.


Benson, G.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moyle, A.


Beswick, F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mulley, F. W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Murray, J. D.


Blackburn, F.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Nally, W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Blyton, W. R.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Boardman, H.
Hamilton, W. W.
O'Brien, T.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hannan, W.
Oldfield, W. H.


Bowden, H. W.
Hardy, E. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Bowles, F. G.
Hargreaves, A.
Orbach, M.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Oswald, T.


Brockway, A. F.
Hastings, S.
Padley, W. E.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hayman, F. H.
Paget, R. T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Herbison, Miss M.
Pannell, Charles


Burke, W. A.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hobson, C. R.
Parker, J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Holman, P.
Paton, J.


Callaghan, L. J.
Houghton, Douglas
Pearson, A.


Carmichael, J.
Hoy, J. H.
Peart, T. F.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hubbard, T. F.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Champion, A. J.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Poole, C. C.


Chapman, W. D.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Porter, G.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Clunie, J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, Philips (Gloucester, W.)


Cocks, F. S.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Proctor, W. T.


Coldrick, W.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pryde, D. J.


Collick, P. H.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Cook, T. F.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Rankin, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reeves, J.


Cove, W. G.
Janner, B.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rhodes, H.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Richards, R.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Daines, P.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Ross, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Keenan, W.
Royle, C.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Kenyon, C.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


de Frietas, Geoffrey
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Deer, G.
King, Dr. H. M.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Delargy, H. J.
Kinley, J.
Short, E. W.


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Donnelly, D. L.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lewis, Arthur
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lindgren, G. S.
Slater, J.


Edelman, M.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Snow, J. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacColl, J. E.
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McGovern, J.
Steele, T.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McInnes, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Ewart, R.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, F.
Strauss, Rt Hon. George (Vauxhall)







Stross, Dr. Barnett
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Usborne, H. C.
Williams, David (Neath)


Swingler, S. T.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, Rev Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Sylvester, G. O.
Wallace, H. W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Watkins, T. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylesden)


Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Weitzman, D.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wells, William (Walsall)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
West, D. G.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A.


Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Wyatt, W. L.


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Yates, V. F.


Thurtle, Ernest
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Younger, Rt Hon K.


Timmons, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.



Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tomney, F.
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Holmes.


Turner-Samuels, M.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

Third Resolution agreed to.


Fourth Resolution—Vehicles (Excise)—read a Second time.


Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."


The House divided: Ayes, 313; Noes, 281.

Fifth Resolution—Purchase Tax (utility goods, etc.)—read a Second time.


Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."


The House divided: Ayes, 313; Noes, 281.

Division No. 42.]
AYES
[4.25 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Beach, Maj. Hicks


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Astor, Hon. W. W.(Bucks, Wycombe)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton


Alport, C. J. M.
Baker, P. A. D.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Baldwin, A. E.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, Maj. W. J.
Banks, Col. C.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)


Arbuthnot, John
Barber, A. P. L.
Bennett, William (Woodside)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Barlow, Sir John
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Baxter, A. B.
Birch, Nigel







Bishop, F. P.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Black, C. W.
Harden, J. R. E.
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maude, Angus


Bossom, A. C.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maudling, R.


Bowen, E. R.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Mellor, Sir John


Braine, B. R.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Molson, A. H. E.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Hay, John
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Brooke, Henry (Hempstead)
Heath, Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nicholls, Harmar


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Bullard, D. G.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Burden, F. F. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Butcher, H. W.
Hollis, M. C.
Oakshott, H. D.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Odey, G. W


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Holt, A. F.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)


Carson, Hon. E.
Hope, Lord John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hopkinson, Henry
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Channon, H.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Horobin, I. M.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Osborne, C.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Partridge, E.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Cole, Norman
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Colegate, W. A.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hulbert, Wing Comdr. N. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hurd, A. R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A


Cranborne, Viscount
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Pitman, I. J.


Crookshank. Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Powell, J. Enoch


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Crouch, R. F.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O L


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Jennings, R.
Profumo, J. D


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Raikes, H. V


Cuthbert, W. N.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Redmayne, M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Remnant, Hon. P


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Kaberry, D.
Renton, D. L. M.


De la Bére, R.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)


Deedes, W. F.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robertson, Sir David


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lambton, Viscount
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Robson-Brown, W.


Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Donner, P. W.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Roper, Sir Harold


Doughty, C. J. A.
Leather, E. H. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Russell, R. S.


Drayson, G. B.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Drewe, C.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lindsay, Martin
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Linstead, H. N.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Duthie, W. S.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Schofield, Lt.-Col W. (Rochdale)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. G. (King's Norton)
Scott, R. Donald


Erroll, F. J.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fell, A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Shepherd, William


Finlay, Graeme
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Low, A. R. W.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Fort, R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Snadden, W. McN.


Foster, John
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Soames, Capt. C.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McAdden, S. J.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McCallum, Major D.
Speir, R. M.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Gage, C. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T D. (Pollok)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stanley, Capt. Hon Richard


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McKibbin, A. J.
Stevens, G. P.


Gammans, L. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maclay, Hon. John
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Maclean, Fitzroy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Glyn, Sir Ralph
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Storey, S.


Godber, J. B.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Gough, C. F. H.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Summers, G. S.


Gower, H. R.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Sutcliffe, H.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Grimond, J.
Markham, Maj. S. F.
Teeling, W.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marples, A. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)







Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Wellwood, W.


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Vosper, D. F.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Wade, D. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Tilney, John
Walker-Smith, D. C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Touche, G. C.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Wills, G.


Turner, H. F. L.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Turton, R. H.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Wood, Hon, R.


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Watkinson, H. A.



Vane, W. M. F.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Adams, Richard
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
King, Dr. H. M.


Albu, A. H.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Kinley, J.


Allan, Arthur (Bosworth)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Evans. Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Ewart, R.
Lewis, Arthur


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Fernyhough, E.
Lindgren, G. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Field, W. J
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Ayles, W. H.
Fienburgh, W
Logan, D. G.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Finch, H. J.
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)


Baird, J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
MacColl, J. E.


Balfour, A.
Follick, M.
McGhee, H. G.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Foot, M. M.
McGovern, J


Beattie, J.
Forman, J. C.
McInnes, J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bence, C. R.
Freeman, John (Watford)
McLeavy, F.


Benn, Wedgwood
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Benson, G.
Gaitskell, Rt Hon. H T. N
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Beswick, F.
Gibson, C. W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bing, G. H. C.
Glanville, James
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Blackburn, F.
Gordon-Walker. Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Blyton, W. R.
Greenwood, Rt.Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Manual, A. C.


Boardman, H.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R
Marquand, Rt. Hon H A


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A G
Grey, C F.
Mayhew, C. P


Bowden, H. W.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mellish, R J


Bowles, F. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Messer, F.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian


Brookway, A. F.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mitchison, G. R


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Come Valley)
Monslow, W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Morley, R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hamilton, W. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hannan, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Burke, W. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Mort, D. L.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hargreaves, A.
Moyle, A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mulley, F. W


Callaghan, L. J.
Hastings, S.
Murray, J. D.


Carmichael, J.
Hayman, F. H.
Nally, W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Champion, A. J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P. J.


Chapman, W. D.
Herbison, Miss M.
O'Brien, T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Oldfield, W. H


Clunie, J.
Hobson, C. R.
Oliver, G. H


Cocks, F. S.
Holman, P.
Orbach, M


Coldrick, W.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Oswald, T.


Collick, P. H.
Houghton, Douglas
Padley, W. E.


Cook, T. F.
Hoy, J. H.
Paget, R. T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hubbard, T. F.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W (Dearne Valley)


Cove, W. G.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Charles


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pargiter, G A


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, J


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paton, J.


Daines, P.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pearson, A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Peart, T. F


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Poole, C. C.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Janner, B.
Popplewell, E


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Porter, G


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Price, Joseph T (Westhoughton)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Price, Philips (Gloucester, W.)


Deer, G
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Proctor, W. T.


Delargy, H. J
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pryde, D. J.


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Donnelly, D. L
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)
Rankin, John


Driberg, T. E. N.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Reeves, J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J C
Keenan, W.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Edelman, M
Kenyon, C
Rhodes, H







Richards, R.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
West, D. G.


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Swingler, S. T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Sylvester, G. O.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Ross, William
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Wilkins, W. A.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Short, E. W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Williams, David (Neath)


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thorneycrofl, Harry (Clayton)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Timmons, J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Slater, J.
Tomney, F.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Winterbottom Richard (Brightside)


Snow, J. W.
Usborne, H. C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Sorensen, R. W.
Viant, S. P.
Wyatt, W. L.


Sparks, J. A.
Wallace, H. W.
Yates, V. F.


Steele, T.
Watkins, T. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon K.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)



Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Weitzman, D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Mr. Royle and


Stross, Dr. Barnett
Wells, William (Walsall)
Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

Sixth Resolution—Purchase Tax (deductions from wholesale value)—read a Second time.


Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."


The House divided: Ayes, 314; Noes, 282.

Division No. 43.]
AYES
[4.37 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Channon, H.
Gammans, L. D.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Garner-Evans, E. H


Alport, C. J. M.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Glyn, Sir Ralph


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Godber, J. B.


Anstruther-Gray, Maj. W. J.
Cole, Norman
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A


Arbuthnot, John
Colegate, W. A.
Gough, C. F. H.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Gower, H. R.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Graham, Sir Fergus


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grimond, J.


Baker, P. A. D.
Cranborne, Viscount
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Baldwin, A. E.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harden, J. R. E.


Banks, Col. C.
Crouch, R. F.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Barber, A. P. L.
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Barlow, Sir John
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Baxter, A. B.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Davidson, Viscountess
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
De la Bére, R.
Hay, John


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Deedes, W. F.
Head, Rt. Hon, A. H


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Heath, Edward


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Donaldson, Comdr. C. E McA
Higgs, J. M. C.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Donner, P. W.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Birch, Nigel
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hill, Mrs E. (Wythenshawe)


Bishop, F. P.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Black, C. W.
Drayson, G. B.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Boothby, R. J. G.
Drewe, C.
Holland-Martin, C. J


Bossom, A. C.
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richm'd)
Hollis, M. C.


Bowen, E. R.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Duthie, W. S.
Holt, A. F.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M
Hope, Lord John


Braine, B. R.
Erroll, F. J
Hopkinson, Henry


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Fell, A.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Finlay, Graeme
Horobin, I. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fisher, Nigel
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Bullard, D. G.
Fort, R.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Foster, John
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr N. J.


Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Hurd, A. R.


Burden, F. F. A.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Linsdale)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'gh W.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gage, C. H.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Carson, Hon. E.
Galbraith, Comdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.







Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Jennings, R.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Snadden, W. McN


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Soames, Capt. C.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Spearman, A. C. M


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Speir, R. M.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Nicholls, Harmar
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Kaberry, D.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Lambert, Hon. G.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stevens, G. P.


Lambton, Viscount
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Oakshott, H. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Odey, G. W.
Storey, S.


Leather, E. H. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H. (Antrim, N)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Studholme, H. G.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Henden, N.)
Summers, G. S.


Lindsay, Martin
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Sutcliffe, H.


Linstead, H. N.
Osborne, C.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Llewellyn, D. T.
Partridge, E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Teeling, W.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lockwood, Lt. Col. J. C.
Peyton, J. W W.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Low, A. R. W.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Thorneycroft.Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)
Pitman, I. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Powell, J. Enoch
Tilney, John


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Touche, G. C.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Turner, H. F. L.


McAdden, S. J.
Profumo, J. D.
Turton, R. H.


McCallum, Major D.
Raikes, H. V.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Redmayne, M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Vosper, D. F.


McKibbln, A. J.
Renton, D. L. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Mckie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Maclay, Hon. John
Robertson, Sir David
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Robson-Brown, W.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


MacLeod, John (Rose and Cromarty)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Roper, Sir Harold
Watkinson, H. A.


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Russell, R. S.
Wellwood, W.


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Markham, Maj. S. F.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Marples, A. E.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Scott, R Donald
Wills, G.


Maude, Angus
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maudling, R.
Shepherd, William
Wood, Hon. R.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr S L C.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)



Medlicott, Brig. F.
Smiles, Ltd.-Col. Sir Walter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mellor, Sir John
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and


Molson, A. H E
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Mr. Butcher.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Bowles, F. G.
Daines, P.


Adams, Richard
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Albu, A. H.
Brockway, A. F.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Burke, W. A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Awbery, S. S.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Deer, G.


Ayles, W. H.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Delargy, H. J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Callaghan, L. J.
Dodds, N. N.


Baird, J.
Carmichael, J.
Donnelly, D. L.


Balfour, A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Champion, A. J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Bromwich)


Beattie, J.
Chapman, W. D.
Ede, Rt Hon. J. C.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edelman, M.


Bence, C. R.
Clunie, J.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Benn, Wedgwood
Cocks, F. S.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Benson, G.
Coldrick, W.
Edwards, W. J (Stepney)


Beswick, F.
Collick, P. H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Cook, T. F.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Blackburn, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)


Blenkinsop, A.
Cove, W. G.
Ewart, R


Blyton, W. R.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fernyhough, E


Boardman, H.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Field, W. J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon A G
Crossman, R. H. S.
Fienburgh, W


Bowden, H. W.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Finch, H. J.







Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Logan, D. G.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Follick, M.
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Foot, M. M.
MacColl, J. E.
Short, E. W.


Forman, J. C.
McGhee, H. G
Shurmer, P. L E


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McGovern, J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Freeman, John (Watford)
McInnes, J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Freeman, Pater (Newport)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McLeavy, F.
Slater, J.


Gibson, C. W.
MacMillan, M K. (Western Isles)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Glanville, James
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Snow, J. W.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sorensen, R. W.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sparks, J. A.


Grey, C. F.
Manuel, A. C.
Steele, T.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mayhew, C. P.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mellish, R. J
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Messer, F.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mikardo, Ian
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Mitchison, G. R
Swingler, S. T.


Hamilton, W. W.
Monslow, W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hannan, W.
Morley, R.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hardy, E. A.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hargreaves, A.
Morrison, Rt Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mort, D. L.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Hastings, S.
Moyle, A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hayman, F. H.
Mulley, F. W
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Murray, J. D
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Henderson, Rt. Hon A. (Rowley Regis)
Nally, W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Herbison, Miss M.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thurtle, Ernest


Hewitson, Capt. M
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Timmons, J.


Hobson, C. R.
O'Brien, T.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Holman, P.
Oldfield, W. H
Tomney, F.


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H
Turner-Samuels, M.


Houghton, Douglas
Orbach, M.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hoy, J. H.
Oswald, T.
Usborne, H. C.


Hubbard, T. F.
Padley, W. E.
Viant, S. P.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paget, R. T.
Wallace, H. W.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Watkins, T. E.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Charles
Weitzman, D.


Hynd, H (Accrington)
Pargiter, G. A
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Parker, J.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill
Paton, J.
West, D. G.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pearson, A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A.
Peart, T. F.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Janner, B.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Poole, C. C.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Popplewell, E
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Porter, G.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Price, Joseph T (Westhoughton)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Price, Philips (Gloucester, W.)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, David (Neath)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rankin, John
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'II' y)


Keenan, W.
Reeves, J.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Kenyon, C.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


King, Dr. H. M
Rhodes, H.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Kinley, J.
Richards, R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A
Wyatt, W. L


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Yates, V. F.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Lewis, Arthur
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)



Lindgren, G. S.
Ross, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Mr. Royle and




Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

Seventh to Twenty-first Resolutions agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [17TH MARCH]:

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance, so, however, that this resolution shall not extend to giving any relief from purchase tax otherwise than by making

the same provision for chargeable goods of whatever description or by reducing the first. second or third rate of the tax generally for all goods to which that rate applies.

Resolution read a Second time.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution and upon the other Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means and agreed to this day and upon the Resolution reported from the Committee on Finance [Money], and agreed to on 17th March, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Arthur Salter and Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

FINANCE BILL

"to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with Finance," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

EXPORT GUARANTEES [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the amount of the liabilities which may be undertaken by the Board of Trade in respect of guarantees under sections one and two of the Export Guarantees Act, 1949, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session—
(a) raising to seven hundred and fifty million pounds the limit of five hundred million pounds imposed by subsection (4) of section one of the said Act of 1949 in respect of guarantees under that section;
(b) raising to one hundred and fifty million pounds the limit of one hundred million pounds imposed by subsection (2) of section two of the said Act of 1949 in respect of guarantees under that section;
in the sums which, under section three or section four of the said Act of 1949 are to be or may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, charged on or issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing or paid into the Exchequer.

Resolution agreed to.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(RAISING OF LIMITS ON GUARANTEES UNDER EXPORT GUARAN TEES ACT, 1949.)

4.53 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "fifty," and to insert "twenty-five."
My hon. Friends and I wish to explain at once that this Amendment is not moved with the intention of dividing the Committee. But we do feel that there should be a discussion upon the contents of the Bill so that we can learn whether the Clause is absolutely necessary.
Since we discussed it initially, there have been the cuts in the import duties and they, in themselves, have limited the prospects of exports generally. There are many things which require fuller consideration. In connection with dollar exports, for instance, because of the limitations placed upon us in sterling markets, is it still the policy of Her Majesty's Government, by providing the amenities for traders, to force themselves into the dollar markets, not only the United States and Canada, but also the Latin-American countries? We should like to know something of what is happening as a result of the policy which has been followed to date and whether it is intended that special facilities shall be continued for those who are prepared to be adventurers and go into the very difficult dollar markets.
Can we be told whether these endeavours are successful? Can we be informed how successful they have been and, if there have been failures, whether they are very great? We should like to be told something of the difficulties encountered. Can we be told how many dollar exporters are insured through the Export Credits Guarantee Department, so that we can see to what extent the moneys given to the Department are being spent in urging dollar exports?
I should like to know whether the credit facilities are spread in one direction or in many directions, and to what degree. I should like to know, for instance, what are the credit risks in the Commonwealth


countries; what are the credit risks in Asia, excluding the Commonwealth countries; what are the risks in Europe as a whole and the risks in Eastern Europe? I have already asked for details about the export facilities to the dollar markets. Perhaps they could be broken up into Canada, North America and Latin-America.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has a great interest in the Middle East and in that I think we can all join with him. In the Middle Eastern countries we got in and built up our trade and established ourselves, especially in the field of machinery, communications and electrification, with the result that, having laid down that plant and machinery, there is a continuation of demand for our goods, which is a very profitable thing for our industry and the country generally.
Now, as a result of the limitation of credit facilities, we find that the Americans are getting in and establishing their plant and machinery with the consequence that, in due course, it will spread, they will have the long-term markets and we shall be pushed out.
That would be a very bad thing for British industry. I think that further consideration should be given to credit facilities for Middle Eastern countries, and in this connection I emphasise the case of Israel, where they are experiencing the greatest difficulty in the sense that they will have to make up their minds whether they will buy from Britain or from the United States.
I should also like to know something about the restrictions on trade in Hong Kong, which is damaging our economy. It is particularly difficult at this stage, when we find that the Americans are helping the Japanese and the Japanese are getting markets which rightly belong to us and which we should endeavour to keep. I trust that the President of the Board of Trade will be able to tell us something about trade and present restrictions in Hong Kong and whether there is any hope of their removal.
In moving this Amendment, I am bound to say that we feel that the policy of the Government at the moment does not encourage optimism. I should like to be reassured by the President and to have some answers to these questions so that

we may have an opportunity to make up our minds.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I rise very readily to reply to the remarks which were made by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), as I understand he does not wish to press his Amendment to a Division. I think it would be a mistake—and I think he agrees with this—to seek to bring down the level of guarantee for which we are asking in this Bill. I am quite confident that he has at heart, as much as Her Majesty's Government, the belief that we should do everything within our power to foster our export trade. Clearly, this is one of the ways in which that export trade can be fostered and assisted
The point he raised immediately and which, I think, was a perfectly fair one was that in view of the import restrictions which have been imposed have we the same need for an increase in our level of guarantee as we had before? I think the answer to that is, "Yes." It is true that the imports cuts imposed by the Australians cover a very large extent of our export trade. I think that 13 per cent. of our total export trade is affected or comes within the scope of the Australian cuts. It would not be possible to say at this stage how much trade will be lost, because the precise details of the quotas, methods of restriction and the contracts and so forth have not yet emerged; so I think it would be a little early to make an assessment of them at the moment.
Another point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was that in view of the possible reduction there should therefore be some reduction in the ceiling—at least that is, as I understand it, the broad way in which he put it. What we must try to do is to maintain the sum total of our exports at a high level. The right hon. Gentleman asked was it still the intention of the Government to foster by all means within their power exports to the North American market. Again, the answer is, "Yes." That is the object of all policy, and I think the Committee will agree that if we are to solve our balance of payments crisis, then one of the ways of doing it will be by breaking into very difficult markets and seeking to hold them, sometimes against very severe competition

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Could the President of the Board of Trade help us here in a difficulty? One difficulty which we had in the Second Reading debate was that those who were not acquainted with the working of the Department could not find out what is a special area within the meaning of Section 2 of the main Act and what is a normal area. As we have two Amendments down, it would assist if the right hon. Gentleman could say now whether the North American market is generally regarded as a special area. On the Second Reading, for instance, Cuba was quoted on the one side and Poland on the other side. Could the right hon. Gentleman say what is the line of demarcation?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The division is between the two Sections. The Section of the main Act to which this Amendment refers covers the ordinary commercial case under which a guarantee is given if the Advisory Council approve it as an ordinary commercial method. The next Section—and I will not elaborate the point; we shall reach it later—deals with the difficult case where the Advisory Council take the view that, as a matter of ordinary commercial prudence, it would not be a proper project but that it might be in the national interest to have insurance of that type. We can go into the reasons later. We might find guarantees of trade with the U.S.S.R. on the one hand and North America on the other—and both can be included under Section 2.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite asked whether it was our intention to break into the American market. He further asked me whether I would break down the information about Canada and the United States. I do not suggest that I can answer all the questions he asked—it is not easy to do so at short notice—but I can give him the breakdown between those two countries. We insure approximately 10 per cent. of the Canadian export trade and very nearly as much—about 9.2 per cent.—in the case of the United States of America.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I appreciate the spirit in which he moved the Amendment. The points he raised are perfectly proper points for examination. Although we are meeting

with these difficulties in certain of our export markets, that does not lessen the need for an increase in the level to which our export guarantees can be carried.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I was in some agreement with the President of the Board of Trade when he said that the ceiling of the money available for our export trade should not be lowered because of the policy adopted by the Australian Government. I hope we shall succeed in persuading them to change that policy, for I cannot believe that the problems of the Commonwealth will be solved by a process of throwing out each other's washing, which is what their present proposals rather resemble.
The point I want to make to the President of the Board of Trade is this—and I do not know whether it comes under this subsection or the next. There is a type of export which is important in that it opens up to us an alternative to dollar area sources of imports. I have been in correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman for a considerable time about Syria. A relatively small amount of exports there, some of obsolete armaments which are required in that part of the world, not primarily for making war but for prestige purposes of the Government, are being supplied at present by the French, which gives the French control over that economy. Owing to its finance arrangement with France, the Syrian Government cannot control its own economy. Consequently, a relatively limited amount of exports—about £4 million worth—from us would enable them to get control of their own cotton crop, which is a very valuable alternative to dollar sources of cotton.
I do not feel it would be appropriate to go into this sort of matter in detail on the Bill, but I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention, in particular, to what seems to me to be an important matter so that he may see whether he can get something going in that area. We have been in difficulties in the Middle East. In the instance I have mentioned, we have a Government which is a little short of friends and which is very anxious for a friend in the West. With a little sensible commercial management, I believe we could be on very friendly and profitable terms with the new Syrian Government.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: I want to support most of what my right hon. Friend said, but I think it is right to point out the difficulties which exist when we are quite clearly at the moment of switching in industry, which was recommended rather glibly the other day by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland). That switching is about to begin. The whole pattern of exports is in a state of change and the figures we have had up to date for this export credits scheme may be no guide at all to what will happen in the future. We must not rely too much upon them.
One thing is quite certain. If we have the combination, which we face at present, of a change-over for physical reasons—to do with trying to close the dollar gap, to do with a shortage of certain raw materials from the dollar areas and to do with re-armament—and of a shiver going through the export world because of the act of the Australian Government, then we meet a situation which needs careful attention.
The action of the Australian Government has a two-fold effect. The change which will take place because their future pattern of imports is to be changed is one thing; but the change which will take place because they have unilaterally cancelled existing contracts and are not sufficiently willing to appreciate what that involves, will be much deeper. It is quite clear that when people are in a state of doubt in the commercial world, the first thing they do is to increase their insurance.
Indeed, we may see something which I had hoped we should never see—the need to take out insurances within the British Commonwealth of Nations. So far, almost all Commonwealth business has been conducted not even on an irrevocable credit, but by waiting until the goods are ready to be exported and then asking for the credit to be opened. Now we may get a queue waiting outside for insurance, in the way we had for areas outside the Commonwealth. That may be the result of the creation of this doubt. Doubt can be resolved to a great extent, but the easiest and shortest way to resolve it is by taking out insurances.
In parenthesis, may I say that possibly one of the best ways to extend the export drive would be for this organisation to see that its rates are kept as low as

possible? If there is one way in which confidence would grow again—and confidence is a delicate flower which withers very easily—it would be for the very competent and sympathetic officials of the Board of Trade, whom I know from personal experience, having a new type of business brought to them, not making their rates prohibitive. It takes a long time to build up confidence and, apart from what we hope will be the action of the Australian Government, that is one of the best ways of building it up.
It is a Parliamentary paradox that I should raise this matter on an Amendment to reduce the sum, but it is obvious that the tendency must be to increase it, because the real essence of insurance is one thing only: that those who write the risks—and this has been the strength of British insurance over hundreds of years—must always be in a position to meet them. That is the reason no private group companies can cover war risks—because they are so unlimited as to be beyond calculation.
Here we are to have an uneasy period of new risks. Owing to the atmosphere in which the debate has started, I am certain that this matter will be looked at sympathetically, and I hope that, under the switch in the export trade, those who go to those markets will be treated sympathetically.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: If there were any special reason for congratulating the Front Bench opposite for putting this debate on at this convenient time—convenient as compared with the time at which we had the Second Reading debate—it would be that it has given us an opportunity again to hear the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher). He has always spoken in these debates, except on that occasion of the Second Reading, when it seemed fit to the Government to take an important matter, which affects the whole export future of the country, at about 3 o'clock in the morning, after trying to switch it in after some other business late in the evening.
I am very glad that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have seen fit to put the Committee stage of the Bill down as an early Order, to give us the opportunity, when we are all fresh, to think about the various problems which face this country in the export trade. I am particularly


grateful—I think the whole Committee is—to hear again from the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe. We always think he talks sense. We may not agree with him, but we believe he knows what he is talking about. As there is an atmosphere of harmony prevailing at the moment, I will not say any more on that point.
I would say to the President of the Board of Trade that I was sorry that the Second Reading debate began to resolve itself into a contest, as it were, of prestige and courtesy, which appeared to confuse the issues which were before us. I spoke for some three-quarters of an hour. I do not want to weary the Committee by doing the same thing again. Fortunately, my speech was printed in HANSARD, and I know that the President will try during this debate to answer the points in that speech which are relevant to this Amendment which is before us.
The Amendment proposes a nominal reduction for the purpose of discussing—if I may use the term which, I think, has been generally used in the Committee—the ordinary risks as opposed to the special risks. It is said—it has been said—that this increase is required because more money is needed to cover the normal risks. As I said in the Second Reading debate, that can arise in one of four ways.
First, the volume of the risk which may be covered may remain constant, but there may be a general larger volume of exports, and, therefore, the total amount which is required will be more. That is one possibility. Second, irrespective of the volume of exports, the actual cash price of the exports may go up, and, therefore, while the same volume of exports, or even fewer exports, is covered, the amount of money required will be more.
Third, while the total volume of our exports may remain the same, or may be anticipated to remain the same, there may be a desire, for various reasons, for traders to cover a larger proportion of the risk. Suppose that at one time there was a situation in the world in which such traders, normally speaking, did not go to the Export Credits Guarantee Department at all, but that matters changed, so that a great many more people had to go.
But there is a fourth reason, that the credits and the exports revolve, and, therefore, the global total of cover re

quired may be greater, depending upon the speed at which they revolve and the type of credit that is given. That will also affect the total.
Put shortly, those are the four reasons why, as things stand at the moment, it may be necessary to increase this total, and it would really be of value to the Committee if we could now be told in what proportion these are divided up. The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to answer a question by me which, unfortunately, so far as I can see, has never been in the Index of HANSARD. When I looked it up I could not find the figures, and I am quoting them now, not from the answer which the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give, but from my recollection of them. It appears, if I recall correctly the figures the right hon. Gentleman gave, that the alteration in the percentage of cover is a comparatively small one—1 per cent. or 2 per cent.—in the proportion of our exports by volume which are in fact covered.
What we should like from the right hon. Gentleman is, first, some indication in regard to the present events. Does he think, for example, that the events in Australia will mean, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury and Radcliffe, for example, suggested, that there will be a considerably greater percentage of the total volume of exports requiring cover? Next, what does he think is likely to be the total volume of exports as compared with last year? Does he expect, as we were constantly expecting at one time, a rise in the volume? I am not talking about a rise in cost. Third, what does he think the average sort of rise in prices is likely to be?
Then, is there any change in policy? Because I should have thought—and I do not know whether this is so or not—that a big increase in a total of this sort would suggest, at any rate, a hope that the type of export which was to be underwritten would be the type of export on which the turnover was slow, and as we were increasing the proportion of that type of export in the total, that that would involve a great deal more money being tied up.
As I understand it, that type of export is the products of the engineering industry. If the President of the Board of Trade could give the Committee some indication why at this stage we feel we are going to be in a position to export


this increasing quantity of capital goods—if that particular calculation is the right one, as this figure would suggest—I think it would be a help to the Committee in considering this matter.
5.15 p.m.
I am about to conclude because I want to give the Government a chance to deal with these points, but I should like to say a few words in regard to this particular shift in the economy. We all paid tributes in the early hours of the morning to the work of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, and I think that in the early hours of the evening we might repeat those tributes. But so far as the proportion of materials is concerned, it would seem to me that what they concentrated on was selling consumer goods, and selling consumer goods in the unplanned economies.
In respect of the dollar drive countries there is a pamphlet "Sell more, risk less," which is directed to and wholly designed for and altogether concentrated on the problem—the larger problem—of the packaging and marketing and selling of consumer goods in the dollar areas. It was the first act of the Secretary for Overseas Trade in his office to write the preface to that pamphlet.
That is, in a sense, inconsistent with this great increase of total, which, I should have thought, was an increase in total designed for selling capital goods where long-term credits are required. I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans we are making for a similar type of pushing of goods which go to planned economies. I do not want to suggest an ideological trend. People often talk of these things in terms of East-West trade. I think it can very often be simply expressed in that way, but it is not altogether true, because there are other countries which, to some extent, have planned economies.
The Export Credits Guarantee Department are trying, where it is not outside their sphere altogether, to allocate and assess the value of the risk in respect of those markets. It is quite a different problem to say, "Here is a buyer who is good for three months," and to say to someone, "You can start, and we will underwrite, while you are constructing and building, something which will have to be delivered in two or three years

time," to form part of the plan of the planned economy of some country. It is, therefore, necessary, I should have thought, for the Department to give the same sort of service to this sort of exporter as it gives to the people who are trying to sell consumer goods with a quick turnover.
There is one more question which I think should have been put by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe, but perhaps he knows the answer and is not going to tell us. I am not certain, but a thing which I—and I say it with all humility—consider as important, is the question of off-shore trade. I am not certain how far there is a desire to build up off-shore trade.
We have in this country considerable experience of world trade, and if we can use that experience for the development of the trade of the world, we should, I think, be doing a great service to the world as a whole. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that this is a service which we should not pass on to those who are less well-equipped for it than ourselves. Therefore, it is no use trying—or it may be of use to try, but it will certainly be very difficult—to secure a result if we try to perform this sort of service, for example, to the U.S.A. The people for whom we want to do it are those countries which are growing up and just re-establishing themselves. How far, to take one country, such as Indonesia, are we in a position to help those people who are organising off-shore trade in the Far East—I do not know about China because anything said about China might be controversial, but let us say the countries of the Far East which are new and rising countries?

Mr. W. Fletcher: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is talking in terms of developing a big hydro-electric scheme in Indonesia, then surely this Department is not the right means to employ, because that is a question of long-term credit, not a question of insuring goods. This is a very satisfactory credit system for the insurance and exchange of goods, but if we are to guarantee a number of long-term public work developments in that area, surely that means that we shall be going in for a very long period, and no credit such as we are contemplating could go very far in that direction.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Is not this exactly what was suggested by the right hon. Member who is now the Minister of Works, as reported in c. 712 of Vol 460 of HANSARD, on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Export Guarantees Bill, 1949, when he specifically referred to the risks attendant on setting up a factory in France today, a project which he suggested should be insured, although it would take about five years to get that factory going?

Mr. Bing: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and to the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe for their interventions, both of which are helpful. In the first place, I think that I was not making myself absolutely clear. I had in fact left that point concerning capital equipment, but I will return to it in a moment.
I agree that that has always been urged upon us, as the hon. and learned Member said, if we were in agreement that the Export Credits Guarantee Department should be used for that purpose. But I appreciate that there must be a limit to the length of credit, and we may be told, perhaps by the President of the Board of Trade, what is the maximum length of credit which can be given under the scheme and whether he has any views on lengthening that period any further.
As I understand the position, there is a view that there should be an increase of the so-called medium-term credits. I understand that these medium-term credits are to cover exactly the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. They are for the purpose of covering the export of capital goods and of incidental risks which someone incurs while manufacturing goods and sending part of those goods abroad; and while they have to incur the continuous liability of the purchaser of them not being able to purchase the completed goods for which they have tooled up their whole factory. I was under the impression that the scheme covered such projects, but perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will deal with that point, because I may be mistaken.
The point I was coming to is that, quite apart from capital development, there is an off-shore trade which we might very properly underwrite through the Export Credit Guarantees, but it is not,

to my mind, sufficient to underwrite it; it is also necessary to promote it; not only in regard to the dollar trade, but in other parts of the world, and to bring to the attention of traders shipping and storage facilities, etc. What are we doing to bring to the attention of those concerned in such trade the advantages of the export credits guarantee?
I do not want to make a very long speech, and therefore I will conclude. Everybody in the Committee realises, as the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe so rightly says, that the Australian decision means there is a considerable change in the situation. There will have to be a new departure and new thinking in regard to the whole policy of export credits guarantees, and the whole policy of our foreign trade. When we are making a new departure and persuading traders to go into a field they do not know, they may require a guarantee which they do not require when they are trading in the traditional areas in which they have previously traded.
I say in defence of myself and of the rather long speech which I made on Second Reading that I did then specific, ally call the attention of the House to the Australian position before I had any indication of the measures which the Australian Government were going to take. I do not think that anyone had any indication of them, and certainly not the back bench Members on this side of the House.
Of course, the situation in Australia does not exist there only. I suggest rather diffidently that it might exist to some degree in Egypt. There are a number of areas in the world where the advent of insolvencies involving the export credits guarantee arrangements ought already to give us warning. Here is the smoke before the fire bursts out. I suggested to the House on that occasion that the position in Australia, because everyone was buying wool, was that there were all sorts of people with immense amounts of money to spend and it looked as if there would be a wonderful market, but it collapsed and disappeared.
The sudden demand for consumer goods and the sudden collapse of a raw material market may be particularly acute in Australia; but does it not mean that we have to look at the position in regard to trade in other parts of the world? When we are looking at the


fund, it might be a good thing to seek to underwrite trade in other parts of the world.
5.30 p.m.
To take one example, on this side of the Committee we often speak of trade with the Soviet Union. I believe there has never been an insolvency over a payment from the Soviet Union. Therefore, all the trade which can be underwritten with the Soviet Union is, in normal circumstances, likely to mean a profit for us. If the business is to be looked at from a commercial point of view and the fund is to be used for trade in other parts of the world where things are much more risky, a fair share of the business ought at any rate to be in those parts where up to now there has not been a single insolvency.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what he can about such considerations. I will repeat the four questions which I hope he will answer so that the Committee may look at this subject in perspective. Does he anticipate a bigger volume of exports altogether, and, for that reason, more to be covered by the scheme? Is he anticipating a greater increase in the prices of exports, and, if so, what does he reckon that will be? The figures look as if a slightly bigger volume is being covered, but does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate a much greater volume to be covered? Also, how far does he expect the shift in relation to consumer goods to be reflected in a shift from short-term credits to medium-term credits? If he will give the Committee all the facts, it will enable us to consider the Amendment more thoroughly.

Mr. David J. Pryde: I support the arguments which have been put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing), but I wish to speak principally about Australia's policy. Last week I heard the President of the Board of Trade tell the House that he had nothing but praise for Australia's policy. I should like to draw his attention to the great unrest which that policy is creating in this country, and especially in the carpet weaving industry.
In my constituency I have three great carpet factories employing weavers who

can produce as much as 450 square yards of carpet in a five-day week. Before 1952, 40 per cent. of the output of the factories went to Australia and New Zealand. This year we have shipped none. That means that the 40 per cent. is being flung into the home market.
As yet those factories have not experienced any great degree of unemployment. In my constituency is the only firm in Scotland which weaves tapestry, which is about the cheapest form of floor covering. That carpet is now being put into the home market and it is natural that lower-priced products will do better in the market. The result is that unemployment threatens other weaving areas of Scotland and also the jute industry in Dundee.
I warn the President of the Board of Trade that he is creating a very dangerous situation. The people of New Zealand and Australia will require carpets and they will get them from the weaving looms of Yonkers and Springfield or even from the continent of Europe. If the President of the Board of Trade walks into any of the great stores in Oxford Street he will see, as I did this morning, carpets which were woven in Belgium selling at prices with which we cannot hope to compete.
I do not want to see unemployment in the carpet weaving industry to the same degree as I used to know it. The last Labour Member of Parliament for Peebles and South Midlothian had to get the authorities to provide a special employment exchange in my own town of Bonnyrigg to cope with the high unemployment in the carpet weaving industry.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch has said, there are various ways in which the Government can counter the problem. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would explain how the policy of Australia and New Zealand can contribute to the alleviation of our dollar problem.
Should there be unemployment in our constituencies, we can point to the fact that, even under the Distribution of Industry Act, the Government has never taken any remedial measures against unemployment in Scotland. Two parishes in North Midlothian are scheduled under the Act, but still nothing has been done. There is a greater wastage of manpower and womanpower in North Midlothian


than in any other part of Scotland. Hundreds of women have to travel each day from the West Calder area into Edinburgh to pack biscuits, and that means that each week each woman has to spend 7s. 6d. or 10s. upon fares. That is useless travel.
In the county of Midlothian are the finest oil shale measures in the world. In the county of Midlothian from the Forth to Peeblesshire are two seams of the finest ironstone, but as yet they have only had their surface scratched. Other fine minerals in the county have never been exploited because nothing is done to divert labour to them.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot go into such detail on the Amendment.

Mr. Pryde: I wish to draw attention to the fact that, having taken a census of unemployment figures in my constituency, all I can see is a steady rise in unemployment figures as a result of the policy which is being pursued. In one instance the figure is nine times greater than it was recently, in another instance four times greater, and in yet another it has doubled.
It is true that seasonal unemployment may have some influence, but, nevertheless, in the Valley of the Tweed there is only one industry, tweed weaving, and this has been cut out of the dollar market. As a result, the people there have no hope of employment unless they are moved elsewhere, as happened during the war when they went to munitions factories. I saw girls fainting at the machines rather than give in in order to provide the materials needed by our lads for fighting purposes. I do not want to see that again. Alternative industries should be brought to Peeblesshire so that Peeblesshire can play its part in solving the dollar problem.

Mr. Ellis Smith: This is a relatively narrow issue, but my hon. Friends have rendered a great service to the Committee and to the country by having initiated the debate. My experience of the Export Credits Guarantee Department goes back to about 1925–26, and as a result of that experience I wish to make a few observations.
The President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Overseas Trade

now have a very great responsibility on their shoulders. It is obvious that the country is again running into a very serious economic situation. It is a situation which anyone responsible for the government of the country would have to face. The only thing is that in the last few months the problem might have been handled differently; we might not now be facing these difficulties in the Dominions and the Commonwealth generally if the responsibility had been in other hands.
As a result of this debate, I believe that the President of the Board of Trade will again have to get his experts together and consult industry to see if the Bill goes as far as is necessary. The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) said that he did not want to make certain suggestions. I believe that he ought to have had the courage to make them. It may be necessary to introduce not only this sort of thing but also export levies. It may be necessary to apply this to a greater extent inside the Commonwealth itself.
It is well known that we cannot live except by maintaining the maximum amount of exports. If the world is prepared to conduct its business so that it segregates itself and partitions itself up, then it will be the responsibility of the House, and particularly of those in the Government, to consider this problem in all its seriousness. It will require greater courage on their part than in the past, and we may have to consider unorthodox methods in order that we may live.

Mr. W. Fletcher: It was not lack of courage that made me refrain from suggesting new remedies, but an unusual respect for the rules of order of this Committee. I think it may well be out of order on this Amendment to make practical suggestions of that sort.

Mr. Smith: There was no need for the hon. Member to make an interjection of that kind. Hon. Members ought to be aware of the rules of order, and they respect the Chair just as much as the hon. Member does. It is not for private Members to say what is in order and what is out of order. We can rely upon the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman who have been selected to preside over our proceedings to keep us properly in order without interjections of that kind.
I was saying that it was my opinion that the amount contained in this Bill


will not be large enough. The hon. Member, in spite of the fact that he claims to be well informed and is the spokesman for big business, by an interjection to one of my hon. Friends proved how ill-informed he is on this issue. Twenty years ago these credits were used for the purpose of guaranteeing the interest that would be required upon credits extended to many parts of the world. Firms like Metropolitan Vickers and the great manufacturing concerns in the Manchester area would never have been able to keep going in those times had it not been for these export credits. It is on record, and can be checked if necessary, that the scheme which the hon. Member mentioned received benefits from the kind of service provided in this Bill. We have now reached a situation where we shall have to consider extending it to similar contracts.
I remember some years ago that large electrical development was taking place in Russia and China. Germany was going all out for this kind of work. The Germans financed capital through guaranteed credits for the A.E.G. and similar industries, while our own firms could not obtain similar credits. As a result of the Advisory Committee giving the Export Credits Department all the advice that was necessary, further facilities were provided and we were able to obtain contracts for some of this large-scale electrical development work in Russia, Poland and China, which provided many men with employment for years. That was primarily due to the service that was given by this scheme.
In my view the President of the Board of Trade needs to consider very carefully what is being said in this debate, so that he can go, if necessary, to the Treasury for even larger sums than have been mentioned in this Bill. In my opinion, greater amounts will be needed to enable us to obtain a greater share of the available world trade than we are now having.
My final word concerns the situation which we are facing in North Staffordshire. For six years we were called upon to make our contributions to the export trade by producing the maximum amount of pottery. It is to the everlasting credit of the home of the pottery industry that all sections work night and day in order to make the maximum contribution to the nation's export drive.
5.45 p.m.
A serious situation is now arising. Decorators are becoming unemployed; others are going on short-time. There is consternation in the area about the developing situation. I am not going to speak too critically about this, because it is easy to talk. It behoves us to be on our guard and, while not speaking too critically, to remember the serious economic situation which has recently developed. If Commonwealth planning had been organised six years ago this situation might have been avoided, and therefore every hon. Member who was not prepared to be a party to the planning that was necessary six years ago has some responsibility for the present situation.
The pottery industry has made its maximum contribution to the export drive. The Australian markets have now gone for the time being, and I am pleading with the President of the Board of Trade, who I know has a special interest in this matter, as soon as possible to examine whether sufficiently adequate facilities are provided by the Export Credits Department.
Let me add a word by way of digression here. That Department has rendered great service to this country ever since it was set up. Its officials have taken a big view of things, and industry generally greatly appreciates what they have done. Their difficulties will become greater now because the amount at their disposal is nowhere near enough to enable them to deal with the situation.
May I suggest that the services of these officials should be placed at the disposal of the pottery industry, and that the representatives of all the interests in that industry should be got together as soon as possible so that we can in various parts of the world, by applying the principles contained in this Bill, make up much of the trade we have lost.

Mr. Hale: I am glad to be following my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), whose district is near the one I represent, and also because he represents an area in which I have still a passing interest. I agree that the pottery industry is facing a serious situation. I do not know whether my hon. Friend read recently that another 400 workers have been thrown out of work in the potteries due to the recession of trade with Australia.
Everyone speaks with such commendation of the work of the Export Credits Guarantee Department that we must all agree that it is an excellent Department, but those who have travelled abroad have sometimes found that we got behind in marketing arrangements in the years before the war, and were always cut up. I was lucky to have had the opportunity of making inquiries in the property market in Australia in 1948 and of seeing some of the principal merchants and agents for British foods. One thing, apparently, that we have never learned about Australia is that there is no Australian market as a whole. Places like Brisbane and Perth cannot be dealt with through Sydney, and to think that they go together is a mistake. Australia is a federation just as much as the United States is, and the nearest town to Perth is 2,000 miles away.
We have to have agents and representatives in each of the five principal towns of Australia if we are to advance our trade. I can speak quite freely on this matter now, and I suspect that in this field the Board of Trade sometimes rely too much on the advice of the Federation of British Industries. I find that in most federations some of the most progressive manufacturers are outside it just because they are progressive. The thing often goes hand in hand, because they are not prepared to agree to price rackets.
For a long time the whole question of export rejects, which is vital in the development of the export trade, has been governed almost entirely on the advice of the Federation. I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), who speaks all too rarely here but who, when he does speak, does so with great effect indeed.
The debate has brought allusions to many matters which are important to our constituents. I find myself always coming up against curiosities of Parliamentary procedure. As I undertsand the position, we are discussing an Amendment to reduce the amount of money to be provided when we wish that the amount might very well be more, but we cannot move to increase it. We can only raise a discussion by this somewhat unusual means of moving a reduction.
The debate has gone on upon the basis that we are discussing the sum of £900 million. Perhaps we are talking ourselves

into a certain state of misunderstanding in continually using this figure, which is not the amount which is to be spent but the amount which is to be insured. It is a very great tribute to the work of the Department. As I understood the Secretary for Overseas Trade, the amount which has been in question is not a £9 million loss, because £5,400,000 has been recouped since. Therefore, the total loss on the guarantees of insurance on this vast sum, which must run into much more than £1,000 million, over three years, is a matter of £3,600,000. That is a very great tribute indeed.
To give a complete picture we must say that there has been a revenue of something like £7 million available for deposits in one of those bottomless pockets of the Treasury into which money is so often poured and from which it never returns. It is a bourne from which no financial traveller ever will return. That is a magnificent financial statement to put before us, and gives the maximum encouragement for the maximum development of this scheme. Talking in figures like that, of an overall profit of more than £3 million, is much more impressive than talking about the Financial Resolution of £900 million, representing the amount to be insured.
I was very grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for permitting me to make an interjection. I am still not quite clear in my mind about it. As I understood him, there are five or six several heads under which insurances are guaranteed under the ambit of the export guarantees scheme, particularly under the Act of 1949. They are, I understood from the Secretary for Overseas Trade to say, the ordinary insurances. I gather we are now considering those which he divided into short-term and medium-term insurances, not of a special character. That, I take it, is the main ambit of the operations under the limit of £750 million which we are now discussing.
Then there were some very brief references to market research. So far as I have been able to gather, no one has ever told us how much research has been undertaken, in what circumstances, and on what basis. Is market research conducted by the Export Credits Guarantee Department, or how is it done? That is an important point.
There was at one stage a suggestion that the offices which now are in London, Birmingham and Manchester, might very well be extended to cover the opening of departments abroad. I gather that that was intended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) when he introduced the Bill in 1949, and when he made it clear that the Bill had been drawn in the widest possible terms to permit of the widest operations. In reply to one interjection, my right hon. Friend particularly referred to the fact that one could insure the rumble of machines operating abroad and supplied by this country.
The question of ordinary guarantees and special guarantees cannot be discussed on this Amendment, but will have to be discussed on the second Amendment. That was quite clear and does not need any argument from me. We are on the question of market research, the possibility of opening departments abroad for the development of trade relations, or indeed the sending of trade delegations to some of them.
Most important of all in my view—as I understand from Section 2 of the Act of 1949—it is possible for us to render economic assistance to countries abroad on the basis of this scheme. In other words, as one hon. Member has said, we have to do something about creating markets abroad as well as about supplying them. I gather that we have the legal power to do so under Section 2 of the 1949 Act.
During the rather spacious times of 1945 to 1951 when we were in office, whenever the word "planning" was mentioned there was a good deal of tittering from hon. Members who were then sitting on this side of the Chamber. I fancy that the President of the Board of Trade has already come to the conclusion that a good deal of planning will be necessary in the future.
Let me take textiles. I do not know just what assistance is rendered by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in respect of our main textile exports because the Cotton Board has its own very effective market research organisation and deals with some of the functions with which the Export Credits Guarantee Department would otherwise deal.
The position in the textile industry, in both cotton and wool—I am talking mainly of cotton—is that there has been a sudden and almost inexplicable recession, so sudden that it cannot be explained away by talking about Japanese competition or about trade conditions generally. No one knows what has happened or why. That is borne out by the fact that if we take the figures for January last, we find they were showing something like record exports for textiles at a time when the merchants, whose information is much more up-to-date than the figures of exports, were finding that there was such a recession in orders that mills were closing every day. I am now having, for the first time for seven years, letters from employers in Oldham asking for some other industries to be introduced.
The most important thing about textiles is their location. The overwhelming percentage is now centred in the British Commonwealth and in the Colonial Territories. It would be out of order if I dealt with the question of the Congo, and it may be more in order to do so on the debate which will take place on Wednesday. What is vital in this connection is that we should consider the events which have happened in Australia recently and which are such a classic example of what may happen elsewhere and what, apparently, is foreshadowed. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman interrupts me to indicate that this falls under a special heading. I can reserve my remarks till we discuss that special heading, but it might interest the Committee, if there is no close line of demarcation, if I can develop it here.
6.0 p.m.
The first thing we have to remember is that the sterling area suffers nothing if we buy more goods from Australia and Australia buys more goods from us. These curious arrangements, whereby the various countries of the sterling area were sent back and told to balance their budgets without any reference whatever to the development of trade within the sterling area, seem to be one of the major mistakes in our commercial relations and in our economic planning. There are ample surplus exports from Australia which we need, and she has ample needs which could be supplied by us without


the slightest effect upon the external position of the sterling area.
If we applied that to the Colonial Territories, particularly to Africa, there would be ample opportunity for the development of the market in Africa. It is a tragedy that our trade with Africa is constantly bedevilled by political disturbances and controversies. It is a major disaster that we have not been able to do a good deal more in relation to the development of our markets in Africa where an ample supply of consumer goods is an absolutely basic necessity to any major scheme of large-scale development.
We cannot embark on a project such as the Owen Falls scheme on the Tanganyika-Uganda border without having sufficient consumer goods to meet the high wages paid to African labour. They are a fraud and a delusion, because the labourers have nothing on which to spend their money and nothing to give them value for the money they are being paid. So the right hon. Gentleman should consider at once how far it is possible—if necessary within the ambit of this Bill—to provide for a stimulation of the African trade in relation to cotton textiles.
That brings me to the second point of great importance in this matter. In Oldham we have a large cotton-spinning section. We also have as our largest industry, and one of the best paying, the works of Messrs. Platt Bros. and Company, the textile machinery makers who are exporting textile machines. Unfortunately, Oldham has none of the really highly paid industries, but we do have textile machinery as one of our best. It is rather a tragedy that so high a percentage of that textile machinery still goes to export and so little goes into the Lancashire industry.
However, I cannot develop that now, and for the moment I am sure the President of the Board of Trade is glad to see that textile machinery is still ranking high upon the export list and still Is maintaining its prestige throughout the world.
At some time or other someone has to consider this problem. I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton, who, in the Second Reading debate, said that at some time or other Lancashire has to consider the ambit of its export trade. We shall have to consider what are the long-term plans

for the future and how they are to be developed. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, talked about the opportunities we had for supplying Poland and the U.S.S.R. and others of the eastern countries with large-scale electrical apparatus in the years before the war.
If we ever get back to a planned economy on the basis of the fact that the whole of our economy is not being bedevilled by a cold war and an overwhelming arms programme, the primary job of our planning must be the development of our constructional engineering facilities and the supply to the entire world of the constructional engineering that it so badly needs.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my hon. Friend forgive me for interrupting to make a point I should have made? In the Manchester area we were kept in full employment for years because of the services provided by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. We should have been unemployed if large-scale orders had not been obtained from all over the world as a result of that service.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend, but I will go one point further and I am sure he will agree with me when I do so.
We have not merely to seek to supply the constructional engineering to the people who are crying out for it, but we have to exercise the powers available under the 1949 Act to consider methods for supplying the needs of the underdeveloped areas of the world in constructional engineering, thus contributing to the food needs of the world and contributing to our market for consumer goods.
I am sorry, Sir Charles, that I have to put this matter on that plane, because I would much prefer that we should do this as a matter of imperative duty and wholly without regard to the economic consequences, even if they did us harm. If it were in order, I would have maintained that point of view, but I can say with great sincerity that if we are to plan exports in future, a major part must be taken not by short-term or medium-term but by long-term insurance.
This is a matter on which I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. He will know that in textile machinery,


for example, a year or two ago it was about a four-year delivery date. I think I am betraying no secret in saying that we had to lose a wealth of orders because of that delivery date. There was no way out of it. We cannot develop factories for making heavy textile machines in a few months. We cannot expand rapidly an industry like that. And if we were able to do so, no one could forecast, without much greater international planning, how long the demand would last and how wasteful would be the rapid expansion of the industry. I think I am right in saying that the delivery date is now 18 months.
In a world which is becoming much more uncertain, in a world in which risks are being considerably accentuated by circumstances, some wholly outside the control of Her Majesty's Government and some not wholly either outside their control or their responsibility, I should have thought there might be a great deal in considering some method of long-term insurance as one of the vital matters which now ought to be taken into account. I know there would be difficulties, because if one is to insure people against loss of a firm order at a forward price, obviously the risk is higher than it is in the case of a normal sale. Yet it seems to me to be a matter which ought to be considered.
I have said that I do not wish to speak about special trade at the moment because we have no definition of it and we are all in great difficulty in not knowing what is the line of demarcation. However, I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that it is not geographical. Certainly, if the observations of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) are correct—and I have come to rely so much upon his accuracy that I will accept them almost without hesitation—we never have had a loss in the Export Credits Guarantee Department in respect of trade with the U.S.S.R. So I should hardly have thought that trade with the U.S.S.R. could come in this special category.
The Secretary for Overseas Trade was not churlish, but a little sparse, in the information he gave us upon this subject. He mentioned, casually, herrings to Poland. He said, too, that special cases were sometimes long-term cases and that herrings should be long-term. I do not

know, and I would welcome the sending of herrings to Poland as a useful exchange from the importation of red herrings from Moscow at Election time, which was one of the features of our import trade before the war.
But this question of East-West trade is one of really vital importance and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to face it quite frankly. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch and I had the opportunity, some weeks ago, of meeting a number of highly reputable Chinese merchants with long experience of the trade in China. It was a private meeting, but I do not think I am betraying any confidence when I say that although they represented all-party views, being traders interested only in trade, the one thing which they all said was that at long last there was a Government in China on which it was possible to have a chance of relying, with which they thought they could deal, by which they thought they would be paid, and which would produce an organisation of which they could be sure. If I develop that too much, I shall come somewhere near the bounds of order, but perhaps I may briefly, in two sentences, deal with one point on this which is relevant and which we ought to destroy at once.
I know at once that we shall get from somewhere in the Committee the old allegation, "Yes, but we are having a war with these people and we just cannot send to them rubber, which is a potential instrument of war, at a time when this is going on." That is, of course, an argument which can be made very sincerely and can be received very emotionally, and it can be put over from the public platform as a very impressive argument. There are, however, two troubles about that.
The first is that as long as we continue the present situation, the tungsten from China which we need is going to Russia, and aeroplanes are going back. The position is not helped by arguing that way. Much more armaments are going over to China in exchange for the goods that we need. I say as a matter of first importance, and in doing so, I think, I should have the agreement of nearly everybody closely associated with China, that if we really want to get something moving, we should start trading—that is the best way.
Had we developed our trade with Iron Curtain countries and kept it going, had we kept the interchange of visits and associations and opened, perhaps, a branch office in Moscow, with such insurance upon the staff who went there as the Export Credit Guarantees Department might think was the appropriate risk, we would have made a contribution to international understanding. I think that that still has to be done.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, only a few days before his death, Ernest Bevin said exactly the same thing to me?

Mr. Hale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that Ernest Bevin was keenly interested and always said that. It was one of the greatest theses of his life that commercial negotiations, business relationships, and so on, were the essential way. That brings me to another point of importance.
I have referred already to the fact that there is now power to give assistance to other countries. Perhaps one of the mistakes that we made in the past is the habit of trying to sell something because we made it, and not trying to produce something that other countries need. Even in our conduct of market research, we always seem to have gone out and said, "We can produce so many big teapots and so many brightly coloured cups and saucers, and they are needed. Where can we find a market for them?" Far too little time has been spent in studying the need of the areas and in trying to produce goods specially adapted to that need.

Mr. W. Fletcher: The hon. Member should not be allowed to get away with repeating a gross fallacy. If he had seen, as I am certain he and other hon. Members have seen, all over the world, particularly in the textile industry, the showrooms that are opened by all the big groups of companies to show what is being made and to have an interchange of ideas, so that we can do better than almost any other country and, consequently, manufacture what is wanted, the hon. Member would not repeat this quite unfounded charge.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Member is always cheerful and it is always nice to hear him, but when he gets up nowadays he always

says something quite flagrantly without any knowledge of the facts.
I will take up the hon. Member on his own thesis. Look at our trade with Canada. I was out there since the war, and I have been to every State in Canada. The moment I got west of Ottawa and Toronto, I was told that the principal difficulty about buying goods, except when one got right across to British Columbia, Was that, certainly in Winnipeg and Saskatchewan and some of the western States, no consideration whatever was shown for their needs. I remember, in particular, that I was assured by merchants over there that they were very anxious to buy British boots and shoes, but that British boots and shoes suitable for the Canadian climate never seemed to come over and nobody seemed to have thought of designing them for that purpose.
That was in 1945. I do not doubt that things have improved since then, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton made a special journey there to consider this matter. But the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher)—does he wish to interrupt?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. W. Fletcher: The hon. Member has given one instance, which he has not substantiated. I was saying that in the textile industry, without any exception, throughout the world people of enterprise have opened not sales offices, but showrooms, so that those in other countries can see what is manufactured, can criticise it and can then have something else. In my view—I may not have been in central Canada—that is almost universal.

Mr. Hale: I said that 20 minutes ago. I referred to the very great services that the Cotton Board were rendering in marketing textiles and in their advice, and so on.

Mr. Fletcher: I did not say the Cotton Board. I spoke of individual firms.

Mr. Hale: I am not doubting that for a moment. I am only trying to help, and not to criticise. At the same time, however, I will take up what the hon. Member says. Right through Canada, in a country in which 75 per cent. of the population live within 75 miles of the American border, there are practically no British magazines circulating which


can advertise our goods and impress our trademarks upon the Canadian population. The whole of the Canadian population are buying American magazines and reading American advertising, and, in many cases, popping over the American border to do their shopping.
I am sorry if that information is causing some exacerbation to the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe, but it is' the fact. He has only to look at the relevant figures to know that. As I said before, the textile figures show that the overwhelming percentage of our exports in cotton textiles are to Dominion and Colonial countries. It is no use saying that we are developing tremendous exports in Continental countries, in the U.S.A. and so on, because we are not.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not like to be misquoted. I never said those particular countries. I said, "practically universal." In the areas in which the textile industry has been asked to sell particularly, they have developed very largely. In some areas they have not been able to do so, in many cases because of the very great handicap which they have owing to the bad buying of the cotton in competition with other countries.

Mr. Hale: I should not follow the hon. Member's last sentence, because I am anxious to keep within the ambit of the Amendment, but that really is not the position, as any consideration of the figures would show. I am not trying to attack anybody. We show up very well in this matter. All I am saying is that we can do better and can go on doing better, and that there are many markets that at the moment we have not developed at all.
I have tried so far as possible to deal primarily with the main objects of the sum in respect of which the Amendment has been put down. I hope, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will reply in detail on this occasion to the questions that have been put. This is, today, a very vital matter. It is a vital constituency matter. I do not want to develop the constituency point, but the textile industry does not quite know what has happened to it yet and it does not know what the future is going to mean.
I am told that today in Oldham there are 10,000 fully or partly unemployed

people. That is a very large number, a number that was never envisaged a few months ago. I have had conferences with the representatives of the trade unions and talks with employers, and so on, and all that we get at the moment is about the cancellation of orders, that orders are constantly being cancelled, and no one seems to know what will happen.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have read the recently published survey of European Trade by the United Nations, with special reference to the trade with the U.S.S.R. It is true that in those countries that were producing textiles mainly for their own consumption and had a little export trade, there was a noticeable recession some months ago. That may well be a recession in confidence, and I suggest that when the right hon. Gentleman considers the whole question of the textile industry he should ask himself just how big a part confidence plays in this matter.
Stimulation of confidence is at this moment the most vital thing we could do immediately to stop firms which have had six good years from closing down suddenly because they think that 1923 may have come again. In considering that question of confidence, I do say that Her Majesty's Ministers really should not start playing up this crisis, which the Chancellor so skilfully ignored in his Budget speech, by telling us he was bringing in a Budget to deal with the crisis—

The Chairman: rose—

Mr. Hale: Yes, Sir Charles, I agree. I think it was the encouraging look of the President of the Board of Trade which led me astray.
The constituency point is a very important one. Lancashire today, curiously enough, seems to have to face many problems which do not have to be faced by other areas and it seems unfortunate that, although we now have a very much greater variety of trade than before, there are in that area so many of the trades peculiarly vulnerable at this moment and which are showing signs of very real difficulty.
With these brief remarks, I would ask the President to give the fullest possible reply, because I am sure none of us wants to extend the ambit of the discussion.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I think it would be convenient if I replied now to the large number of important points which have been raised. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) will not expect me to follow him in too much detail on the textile industry, otherwise I might find myself in the same difficulty into which he was getting. But I would say this on one matter—he was discussing with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) the question of market research. Of course the Export Credit Guarantees Department does not carry on market research. What it does is to guarantee the expenditure, as it were, that is laid out in North American market research so that prospective exporters can go into that market and spend money on seeing whether their products are suitable to the particular buyers, whether they are the type of goods required in the locality, questions of distribution and so forth. Then, it guarantees the exporter against the cost of those researches not being recouped by the subsequent orders which, I think the Committee will agree, is a sensible and useful contribution to trade of that kind.

Mr. Bing: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but perhaps it will be convenient to put this point now. He spoke of guarantees in the North American market. Is there any particular reason why such guarantees should not be given in another market, or is it the policy in that market and not in the others?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I would put it the other way round. The reason why it was used in the North American market was because that was a market of peculiar and particular difficulty into which we were most anxious to enter. It does not mean that technically it should not be applied to other markets, but it has, in fact, been applied in that particular form of insurance contract in this market.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised a point in regard to insurance in the case of Syria. If he will give me details of what he has in mind I shall be very happy to look into it, but he will not expect me to embark on the whole subject of Syrian trade in this speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe drew the attention of the Committee to an important matter. That was that we should recognise that the problems of our trade were much wider than the particular Australian incident of the moment. In a sense, the whole pattern of trade in the world at the moment is beginning to change, and I agree with him that we should be unwise to try to pattern the whole of our policy of export credit guarantees on the statistics we have of what has happened so far. Therefore, I agree with him and other hon. Members that what is wanted is that people should be prepared to look at this anew to see where needs are greatest and seek to the best of our ability to meet them as they arise.
The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) reminded me of what he said on a previous occasion in the early hours of the morning, that there were really fair grounds on which one could justify some increase in the ceiling of guarantees, namely, the volume of the export, the cash price—increases in the price—the larger proportion of the risk, or the type of contract. I cannot divide this up statistically, but if we look at any one of these today we should be led to suppose that a higher ceiling was required.
The tendency has been so far for volume increases to go on. The increase in volume last year was 3 per cent. I will not forecast what success Governmental trading and industrial measures will have in expanding exports, but clearly we ought to aim to expand them, and our policy in this, as in other matters, should tend in the same direction.
Prices have tended to rise and there is a larger percentage of risk. Incidents like the Australian affair will tend to make more traders turn to the Export Credit Guarantees Department, and in an uncertain world in which import restrictions are imposed one would expect that insurance would play a larger part. As to the type of product, the Committee are aware that it is easier at the present time to sell capital goods abroad than consumer goods. To that extent, the rather longer period when one is standing out of the money would lead one to suppose that a much higher rather than a lower limit was required.

Mr. Bing: As I understand it, at the moment the amount of guarantees which are outstanding is about £397 million. We have a ceiling of £500 million. To raise it to £750 million does seem, without anything further than what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, not to be as urgent as one might think it. I wonder if he could follow up what he said in a little more detail to show why, when they are already £110 million or so below the previous ceiling, we need to go up by another 50 per cent? That is the point some of us on this side of the Committee have been trying to make.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. and learned Member is quite right. Towards the end of the year there was a slight drop in the amount of guarantees outstanding, but a little earlier the figure had risen more than £400 million showing that a specific figure at a given date like 31st December might be misleading. There is bound to be a certain rise and fall in the figures, and, looking at the figures over the year, we see that they would certainly want a little more elbow room than is given at the moment.
The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) raised an important point on the question of the carpet industry. If one looks at the figures of the Australian cuts one sees there is no doubt that the carpet industry is one of those which, potentially, has received one of the greatest cuts, because 48 per cent. of the total export trade in carpets went in trade to the Australian market and any restriction such as is suggested would have a great effect upon that. One cannot go into the whole question of trade policy in this matter, but clearly one must try to find alternative markets so far as they can be found, and in that the work of the Export Credit Guarantees Department is certainly of some assistance to exporters who are seeking to do that very thing.
I said that 13 per cent. of our exports is covered by the Australian cuts. I put that wrong. I should have said 13 per cent. of our exports went to Australia. That is the more accurate way of putting it.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Poole: Is the Department of the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to know just exactly what is likely to be the impact

of the cuts in Australian imports upon the trades of this country?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I could produce a list of figures showing the total percentages of export trade covered by this type of cut. But it would be quite unrealistic if I read it to the Committee, because at the present time it is not clearly or specifically decided exactly how those cuts are to be applied or what the form would be. Discussions are going on and it would be much better that those discussions should be concluded before I start to jump to conclusions in this debate or make some statement.

Mr. Pryde: May I have the assurance of the Minister that in the very near future we shall get a statement of this description?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes. I am only too anxious that the Committee should have all the information at my disposal.

Mr. Poole: But it is not at the Minister's disposal.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Some of it is, but discussions are still going on.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), by quite a proper paradox, on an Amendment which actually asks for a reduction, did show that what we want is a rather wide extension of the Measure. I have no complaint about that; it is a usual Parliamentary procedure. But I would say to him that I am perfectly ready to examine any methods which may be suggested that would lead to giving greater confidence to the traders of this country. But we do not want to make this thing grow too fast. It has grown very successfully under successive Governments and successive Presidents of the Board of Trade by taking one step at a time and gradually building up, sometimes by an extension of external trade, and sometimes in other ways. That I think is the better form of approach, but my mind is not closed to such suggestions as were made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Ellis Smith: May I say that in the past I have found the Department of the right hon. Gentleman very receptive to suggestions for meeting new circumstances? In my view, we have now reached new circumstances which require suggestions of the character which I made.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I appreciate the point which the hon. Member has made. All the points which have been made in this debate will be carefully examined. They were all fair points directed to helping the work of the Department, and I am sure we shall try to benefit from them. I hope that when our discussions are concluded the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) will fee/ able to carry out the intention he indicated at the start of the discussion and withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I feel that the President has given us a very fair-minded reply. If this legislation is carried out in that spirit, I do not think that any one will quarrel with it and we shall be able to give him our suggestions for finding the alternative markets so much desired at the present time.
Although the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) referred to the problems of Lancashire, I would point out that it is not only Lancashire which is interested in textiles, although the great mass of the unemployment problem would appear to be the serious concern of Oldham. There are smaller industries, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), smaller textile and carpet factories which also have their problems. Though they may not be revealed in big mass figures, they represent a serious and growing problem of unemployment scattered over a large number of areas.
I wish to stress one important outlet which I mentioned at Question time, the need for developing the export credit facilities as they were before the war in order to improve our export trade of herring to Poland, the Baltic countries and the U.S.S.R. Before the war we did a very large trade in herring between Scotland and the U.S.S.R. and countries behind the Iron Curtain. At the present time there is a great deal of concern among Scottish herring fishers about the possibility of an improvement in the market. I ask the President not to be obsessed with ideological prejudices about the renewing of our trade with the countries behind the Iron Curtain. After all, we need—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): We are discussing an Amendment to leave out "fifty."

Mr. Hughes: Yes, Sir, I was endeavouring to present my arguments within the scope of that particular figure. But I wanted to stress that the herring industry should not be overlooked. There has been in the past a great market which requires to be developed. The same applies to the export of agricultural machinery and of articles produced by a very large number of small industries. I ask that these small industries shall not be forgotten. Although in bulk they may not appear to be significant, they represent a considerable part of the total trade of this country.

Mr. M. Follick: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give great attention to the competition we might encounter from Germany in the electrical industry, and I speak especially for a great electrical firm in Loughborough, the Brush, which has conquered big markets, including the Australian market. We wish to prevent those markets being taken away—

The Deputy-Chairman: The scope of the discussion on this Amendment does not permit a discussion about trade in Australia.

Mr. Follick: I merely wished to intervene on that point.

Mr. Bottomley: The President of the Board of Trade has given us a most reasonable reply. Although obviously not all the points have been covered, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Bottomley: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "fifty," and to insert "thirty."
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that he has not had a chance of replying to the questions about which I gave notice earlier, and I am wondering whether he can tell us if the special facilities for the dollar export markets are to be continued, how successful they have been to date and whether there have been any failures? I am bound to give warning that there are other points of substance which other hon. Members are desirous of raising.

Mr. Bing: In a curious way this Amendment is almost identical with an Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Works the last time a Bill similar to this was before the Committee. On that occasion he moved a reduction in the sum to be devoted for special credits for the purpose of inquiring into what were the special covers required.
Some of my hon. Friends have said, very rightly, that it has not been very clearly laid down exactly what are the subjects covered by this particular type of guarantee. The President of the Board of Trade, when speaking on the same subject two years ago, said that it laid with the Government to give very detailed reasons why they wanted another £40 million. That was another £40 million which we were going to ask for.
Now, the President of the Board of Trade is in, the opposite position, and is asking, not for £40 million, but for £50 million, and so we have moved the same reduction as the present Minister of Works moved in 1949 when he was seeking just the same kind of information. The Secretary for Overseas Trade, when dealing with this trade on Second Reading, said:
These guarantees cover a wide number of projects, such as certain aspects of the dollar drive and such things as the export of herring to Poland and many other projects.
He went on:
They include trade with the Iron Curtain countries amounting to £13,240,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1949; Vol. 496, c. 321.]
He also said something about £10 million for buses, which he suggested my right bon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) would know all about.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): I also referred to trade with North America, including the dollar drive, market research, and so forth.

Mr. Bing: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to misrepresent him, but only to put the point as it appeared to us at that time. As I now understand it, what we are really discussing in this Clause are the dollar drive in North America and the special guarantees of various sorts—a hotchpotch, as it were, of special measures.
I think it is probably an excellent thing that we are engaged in dealing with measures of this kind, but I want to detain the Committee for a moment by suggesting that we should look carefully at this sum to make certain that it is the right sum, not too little or too much, for the sort of trade which I think is likely to be before this country in the future.
It seemed to me that the switch in which we may find ourselves now involved may be a switch from the normal commercial guarantees to the special guarantees under Section 2 of the 1949 Act, and it is for that reason that I hope that we shall receive a little more detailed information about that aspect of the matter.
Before I leave the matter, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say how I feel this trade might profitably be developed. We have had from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), some discussion of East-West trade, and I think that, under this section of the Measure we have an opportunity of underwriting those types of activity which are going to develop trade between East and West in Europe in particular, and, secondly, trade with the newly-developed countries, such as China, Indonesia and all the countries which have recently obtained their independence.
The President will no doubt remember—because he was kind enough to sit through the debate—that, speaking on this aspect of the matter, I dealt with the sort of promotions which I think we might well consider under this Clause. I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman to ask him why, for instance, we confined to the North American continent our insurance of people who went to promote trade, because, surely, there are a great many areas in the world other than the North American continent—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am interested in the argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman is submitting, but I do not see how the form of the Amendment enables him to rove about on the question of trade.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Bing: Perhaps I might explain why I consider the matter to be in order. I think it will make the issue clearer. What we are now considering is whether or not we should give an additional £50


million as an overall guarantee for the special types of guarantees, so that that would be the proper sum to give if we saw any particular reason why we should go above the present limits of £100 million, which is fixed for trade of this sort. We have not yet fixed a ceiling, but we are approaching it.
If we are to have another 50 per cent., there must be a great number of new projects, and I am only suggesting this to the right hon. Gentleman in the hope that he might tell us about these now projects and make it unnecessary for us to press this Amendment to reduce the sum. If, on the other hand, he says that he has none of this sort of project in mind, then the sum of £25 million in excess of that already allowed would, in our view, be sufficient, so that the object of the argument—

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman can put forward any number of projects and go into detail to illustrate the difference with the £50 million or whatever the figure is. I do not think he can do that.

Mr. Bing: With great respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris, it may be possible for me to put this argument on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and I will leave it at that, if necessary.
The argument I was putting was that the right hon. Gentleman when dealing with the earlier Measure, said that the special guarantees covered, for instance, insuring people who would be engaged in market research in the North American continent. If we need £100 million and we already cover the North American continent, it is pertinent to ask whether we could cover any other continent if we should have a 50 per cent. increase, and I was suggesting to the President that that might be a very effective course to pursue.
I do not want to abuse the facilities of the Committee or trespass beyond events, but on a previous discussion I have tried to put that argument. We had a very wide discussion on the subject, and we also had a wide debate in 1949, although I have not a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT here at the moment. It was on this particular subject of the special guarantees, and, therefore, I hope I am in order in keeping my remarks within the ambit of what was said by the present Minister of Works in the 1949 debate, when he was moving a similar reduction to this one,

and on this particular aspect of the matter.
However, to resume what I was suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman, I think he ought to lay before the Committee some outline of the plans which he has for the use of the special guarantees, and that he should, in particular, give us some indication of how he intends to use them in regard to East-West trade. This was a matter which we discussed on Second Reading, but, unfortunately, owing to the late hour and the fact that nobody from the Department was there to answer, we did not have a very adequate reply to the points raised.
What I am now asking either the President or the Secretary for Overseas Trade to do is to give an indication of what is the concerted plan. Reference has been made to herring for Poland, but, surely, we ought to have a plan for proper study so that we can see whether Poland needs something else as well as herrings, and be told whether, in developing East-West trade, we are to insure the trading losses of anybody who goes to the Moscow conference, to which I referred when speaking in the Second Reading debate. If we can insure under this Clause a visit of business men to the United States for the purpose of securing consumer exports in these markets, why cannot we insure, similarly, the visits of other business men—

The Deputy-Chairman: The point of the Amendment is to reduce the amount of money being provided. That is the point of the Amendment, but the hon. and learned Gentleman is not now seeking to reduce the amount provided.

Mr. Mitchison: On that point of order. May I humbly submit, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that in 1949, at column 251 of HANSARD, the present Minister of Works moved an Amendment to leave out "one hundred" and insert "sixty"; that is to say, he moved an Amendment precisely similar in its tenor to the Amendment which we are considering today. In the course of his argument, he went on, without being called to order in any way, to consider the question, for instance, whether this was really a second kind of Marshall Plan—a method of giving aid to Eastern European countries.
The right hon. Gentleman discussed that at considerable length—I see that it goes on for at least five columns in HANSARD—and he went into some detail later about the particular requirements in different cases. I submit that if the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Works did that on that Amendment then my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is in order in saying at no inordinate length what he is now saying.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that the conclusion which the hon. and learned Member draws from his argument is necessarily the right conclusion. This Amendment is really a very narrow Amendment. Its purpose is to reduce the amount of money being provided.

Mr. Mitchison: Further to my point of order. With very great respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris, surely if this is a narrow Amendment, so was the Amendment which the right hon. Member the present Minister of Works moved on that occasion. He began at column 251 in HANSARD and was still discussing the matter at column 255. He discussed the whole question which has now become whether we are giving Marshall Aid to Ruritania. I think that is a figure of speech, but he did go into the matter of Eastern Europe and the kind of way in which this money should be used in very considerable detail on, with great respect, an Amendment no wider in any way than the present one.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not dispute the hon. and learned Member's facts. What I do dispute is his conclusion.

Mr. Bing: With great respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I am trying to follow the point of view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. Bottomley), who moved this Amendment in an exploratory sense. We should see whether or not this sum is justified, and, if as a result of the very friendly discussions we have had in the Committee, we found it was justified then my right hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment. What I am now doing is to say to the President of the Board of Trade, "If you use these guarantees for covering this and this and this, I myself would be quite content to use what influence I possess with my right hon.

Friend the Member for Rochester to suggest that he withdraw his Amendment."
The point I am on is that it all depends on what this money is spent on. I am hoping that when I put forward my argument on the way in which I think it should be spent and that it will be sufficient to cover that sort of activities, then I do not think it would be possible for us on this side of the Committee to contend that the excess sum asked for was too large. If, on the other hand, the President of the Board of Trade says that the Government are not intending to undertake any of the sort of activities I am indicating, then there might well be a case for saying, in those circumstances, that the money should not be granted.
With great respect, I have tried—appreciating the difficulties of the Chair in this matter—to model my arguments precisely on the lines of those addressed at that time by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works, feeling that had his discussion been out of order—it proceeded for such a length of time and there was a change of occupant in the Chair during that time—one or other occupant of the Chair would have called the attention of the Committee to the fact.

Mr. W. Fletcher: In his explorations, has the hon. and learned Gentleman thought of persuading any of the Eastern countries to increase the number of irrecoverable credits which they have, because that lightens the burden on this Department? The great secret of using this money to the best advantage is to increase the number of irrecoverable credits.

Mr. Bing: I perfectly appreciate the point, and I am most grateful to the hon. Member for it. If I might say so, it reinforces from—I will not say an unexpected quarter because we have had great assistance from the hon. Gentleman, and always do in these debates—a valuable quarter the argument I was trying to address to the Committee.
What I was going to say—and I put it in the form suggested by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher)—was that we should consider the problem of East-West trade from the point of view of how far it is to be financed by those countries themselves, to what degree they are to open irrecoverable credits here, and what type


of market they are to give for those credits. I will not go into any detail, but I would suggest that we might expend a little money to insure people making visits to explore these possibilities, and it is for that reason I want to make this plea to the President of the Board of Trade.
In the Second Reading debate I spoke on the subject of what is the most effective method for exploring all these means of securing payments for our trade with East-West countries. It is quite obvious that, valuable as the export guarantees are, the very fact that we have to increase the total all the time—and I think I shall carry the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe with me here—

Mr. W. Fletcher: The hon. and learned Member would have a job.

Mr. Bing: I should have no greater pleasure than to be able to achieve it. I hope, figuratively speaking, to carry the hon. Gentleman with me on this point.
However desirable it may be on general trading grounds to extend the credits, the very fact that we have had to extend them marks a degree of the uncertainty of trade, and anybody who has to obtain a credit has to bear a degree of overheads. Therefore, any scheme by which we can somehow or other manage to reduce the overheads which he carries is of the greatest importance and value. That is why, almost like King Charles's head, I come back by this circuitous route to the point at which I was when the various points of order were raised in the Committee.
Before I sit down, I want to make this plea to the President of the Board of Trade in regard to East-West trade, and, indeed, in regard to the trade of all planned economy areas. Do not let the Export Credits Guarantee Department put into two quite distinct compartments trade with the North American continent and trade with the rest of the world,

because it may well be that the trade with the rest of the world will ultimately prove far more important to us than the trade with the North American continent.
Let us consider what insurance we can give to people who go to various parts of the world and let us, in particular, see what insurance we can give to people who go to such places as the Moscow Conference. I mentioned earlier a conference in Moscow. I think it is to be held on 2nd April. As I said in the Second Reading debate, I think both sides of the Committee have been a little at fault in this matter, though possibly for wise and obvious reasons for which none of us may be blamed, but the Foreign Secretary and the T.U.C. have condemned this conference out of hand.
Looking at our trade position, I am not at all certain whether we ought not to look at that conference again and consider whether it is not one, just like any other type of market research, which should be insured by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. It may be said that it is a bad risk. But is it a bad risk to go to those parts?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is now well outside the rules of order.

Mr. Bing: I am sorry to hear you say that, Mr. Hopkin Morris, because I was trying to keep myself very strictly within the ambit of what the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Works had said on a previous occasion. However. I will now come—

It being Seven o'Clock The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

7.1 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to move, to leave out "now," and at the end of the Question to add: "upon this day six months."
To relieve the anxieties of the mayor, aldermen and burgesses of Rochester, I want to say I and my hon. Friends have no intention of dividing against this Bill. Our purpose is to secure that certain matters may be debated before the Bill reaches the Select Committee, and the purpose of our Motion to leave out Clauses 91, 109 and 121, which appears on the Order Paper as an instruction to the Select Committee, is to draw attention to the particular matters in which my hon. Friends and I are interested.
We wish to say something about those three Clauses. Clause 109, "Touting hawking, etc.", is a Clause which appears in many other Bills; but it seems to me unduly fussy and really not necessary. I think the existing law on importuning or insulting behaviour would cover all that is required. Clause 121—" Hairdressers and barbers "—deals with the registration of hairdressers; but I believe that to be already covered under the Public Health Acts. On these two points I think my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) will be speaking at greater length.
I want to address my remarks primarily to Clause 91—"Nuisance from pigeons, etc."—to authorise the City of Rochester to destroy pigeons, doves, starlings and a variety of other birds, on all of which I am not an expert. The purpose of this debate is not hostility in essence to this Clause, but to draw attention to a rapidly growing public evil. I am delighted to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture here. He has come because I suggested to him that we thought this was a matter in which his Department was primarily concerned.
Those who are familiar with Trafalgar Square and the streets adjoining will be aware that every evening tens of

thousands of starlings come there before dusk. It is a remarkable sight to see them performing their aerial evolutions before they rest on the National Gallery, St. Martin-in-the-Fields, a club to which I belong and other buildings. They are spreading now to the Haymarket and Pall Mall, and I believe large numbers go into St. James's Park, which is a more suitable place for them. They talk all night, which is much worse than our night sittings because they all talk simultaneously. People complain very much about the noise, and in addition these birds foul every building upon which they rest at night.
It is not only in the City of Westminster that this plague exists. I am told that a similar state of affairs exists in Birmingham. I am glad to have the agreement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. I am told there is a plague most nights in Finsbury Square. An attempt has been made to burn them up several times, but I think unsuccessfully.
By chance today I was talking to the present Mayor of Westminster who before he was mayor was chairman of the public health committee of the city. I am told that they have experimented in all sorts of ways and, in the main, unsuccessfully. They now think they have some new electrical device which may be successful. I am told they have had no success in Birmingham.
I am not an expert on ornithology, but I have talked on this subject with many people. I have also used the Library and consulted the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Chambers' Encyclopaedia. One says they are very dreadful birds, and the other says they are very good birds. If those two differ, it is no wonder that there is great doubt whether these birds are a benefit or an evil. A friend of mine said, "If you shoot them no dog will pick them up, they are so foul." I do not know. They look so lovely. A former mayor of Westminster who is now in Africa, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling), who was in the siege of Kut, told me that on one occasion they reinforced their diet by shooting starlings, but unfortunately they peppered the brigadier and so the starling shoot came to an end.
I believe these birds have become a menace and a pest. I do not believe they


can be dealt with at the places where they go to sleep. The problem has to be solved in the countryside where they feed and breed. There are considerable doubts as to the migratory habits of these birds. Some people say they are not here during certain seasons. Others say that they migrate in stages throughout the year. But my information is that they are at Trafalgar Square every night, and I do not think that can be arranged by classified migration.
A great many people in the countryside believe these birds are carriers of foot-and-mouth disease. Whether that is true or not, I do not know. A substantial number of informed people in agricultural districts say that it is so. One hon. Member told me it is believed that these birds are also carriers of a certain fowl pest. He gave me the name of the disease, but I did not write it down and cannot pronounce it. But here we have a variety of allegations.
The sole purpose of this debate is to try and bring this matter to public attention. I have had no other opportunity of doing so. I am sorry that we are embarrassing Rochester Corporation who have given us this first opportunity. The curious thing is that Rochester Corporation are not worried about starlings. It is pigeons they want killed. But they also named starlings in their Clause, and I am grateful to them for providing us with this opportunity which otherwise we should not have had.
There are four other Bills proceeding in another place which also contain Clauses dealing with starlings, so the problem is one of considerable substance. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture will agree that here is a problem to be solved. I am not sufficiently expert to say what is the solution. His Department have the resources, and, in conjunction with various societies, they could study the movement and habit of these birds and come to the conclusion whether it is desirable that their numbers should be drastically reduced. All I want to do is to present to the House the fact that the problem exists.
I hope I shall not be thought discourteous if I am not here for the whole debate. The Chairman of Ways and Means is an autocrat in these matters, and he selects the dates of debates. Over two months ago I committed myself to

having a free dinner and making a speech in payment for it. If I leave before the end of the proceedings, I hope I shall be acquitted of discourtesy, especially having regard to the fact that I have no desire to vote on this problem. Though I shall miss the dinner I feel that I must make my payment for the invitation. I have promised that we would not take too much time on this Bill because there is another Bill to come up for Second Reading which excites far more controversy.
I hope I have presented reasons adequate to the House why we have put down the instruction to the Committee to leave out Clauses 91, 109 and 121, one of which is outside the general scope of what we commonly discuss on Private Bills.

7.10 p.m.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish to deal with the question of touting and hawking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) said, the object of bringing this Clause to the notice of the House is, to enable us to say that we regard it as being apparently—I will not say more than that—a very fussy Clause which may not really be necessary. We do not want to embarrass the Rochester Corporation in the runnning of their own show, because we strongly believe that local authorities should have the maximum amount of freedom in the conduct of their own affairs.
But there is a risk. This Clause deals mainly with ice-cream vendors, who no doubt may have been making a great deal of trouble, one way and another, in the borough; otherwise the city fathers would not have seen fit to bring forward this Clause. But I suggest that we ought to avoid provisions of this type—the tendency of which is to clamp down on the freedom of the individual—unless they are really necessary. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), who I imagine will contribute to this debate, has any special information on the subject. If he has, I know that the House would be glad to hear of it.
We wish that the amenities of the borough, like those of all other boroughs, should be available as far as possible to the inhabitants. We do not wish to


clamp down upon them. But if it is a fact that this touting and hawking, in which ice-cream vendors appear to be the main offenders, has become a menace in the borough, then we should like to hear a little more about it. We should also like to know whether the existing rules and regulations and legislation available to the borough are not sufficient already to deal with what may be a considerable trouble.
After those few words of an exploratory nature, I hope that we may be given some information. We do not intend to divide against the Bill, but we should like to have more information which is not only of interest to the House, as the guardian of the freedom of the people, but of interest to other boroughs which may be considering similar action because they have similar trouble.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Erroll: I am glad to have this opportunity of referring to the position of hairdressers in Rochester. It affords a chance of saying something about the circular which the promoters of the Bill have thought fit to send to all Members of this House. The circular makes the suggestion, on page 3, that the Floor of the House is the wrong place upon which to discuss a Private Bill and that it would be much better if it was done upstairs in Committee.
I can hardly believe that the promoters of this Bill and their extremely competent advisers are so naive and ingenuous as to think that the Committee appointed to consider a private Bill is of the same character as that which takes over the Committee stage of a public Bill. At a Private Bill Committee, as most hon. Members realise, our colleagues sit in a judicial capacity. Those of us who take an interest in private legislation may not—and quite rightly—induce our colleagues on that Committee to consider our own points of view. Hon. Members sit on such a Committee in a judicial capacity to hear the evidence for and against the contentious points.
It is, therefore, entirely proper and appropriate that we should seek this opportunity at 7 o'clock in the evening to examine certain matters which appear in this Bill which we feel are either wrong

in principle or inappropriate to the occasion. I am specially concerned with Clause 121, which deals with the registration of hairdressers I see no reason why hairdressers should have to be registered. Why should not a man set himself up as a barber and hairdresser without having to go along to his town hall to get a permit? Since the end of the war we have had far too much of the mentality which says, "Please teacher, may I do something?" before one is allowed to do it.
I have opposed a similar Clause to this when it has appeared in other Bills during the last six years, and I do not hesitate to express my opposition now. I was unsuccessful because the last Government held different views. They felt that a system of registration and control was in the public interest. As a result, a number of Private Acts are now on the Statute Book, placed there since the war and containing provisions for the registration of hairdressers in certain boroughs and areas. That does not in any way reduce the strength of my case. It may be that some mistakes have been made in the past, but that is no reason for making the same mistakes now or in the future.
Therefore, the justification adduced by the promoters of this Bill that such a Clause is already a model Clause is no justification whatever for permitting the registration of hairdressers in the Borough of Rochester. The imputation in the circular which we have received is that because this is a model Clause it is therefore a perfect and proper Clause. Model Clauses are, of course, nothing of the sort. They are merely those Clauses which have been agreed to by a Committee as containing the best way of expressing a particular intention, if Parliament decides that power should be given to that intention.
If a number of corporations were to seek to have a Clause which empowered them to murder their town clerks, there would be a model Clause to that effect. But the fact that there was a model Clause upon such a morbid subject would be no justification for the principle behind it. I hope that in future the promoters of Private Bills will not seek to take refuge behind the existence of a model Clause when called upon to justify the need for a particular provision in the borough in which they are interested.
What harm have the hairdressers of Rochester done that they must now troop along in a miserable queue to a town hall to pay their fee—there is always a fee at the back of these Clauses—in order to get their miserable certificate? It is a certificate which must be displayed prominently, a certificate which must be accompanied by a spate of by-laws imposing what are quite extreme penalties when one considers the moderate nature of the offences which may be committed by the barbers of Rochester. Why should they have this added burden imposed upon them? Because it is a model Clause? Because it has been done in the last six years, and because the promoters thought that it would be a good idea to push it in?
Is there a shred of evidence that this Clause is needed in Rochester? Not a shred. On the admission of the promoters of the Bill themselves, in the circular, there is no evidence of any need for this provision. It is just another example of control for control's sake. I submit that the Clause should be removed. I take this stand on this Bill, and I hope that the inhabitants of Rochester will not feel strongly against me because of it, because as far as I know this is the first opportunity we have had of seeking to eliminate this type of Clause from private legislation. If it appears in other Bills of this type, I shall continue my opposition.
While having thus ventilated the subject, I fully agree that the Bill should go to Commitee and the matter be there discussed; nevertheless, I give notice that if I find this Clause still in the Bill when it comes back to this House on the Report stage, I shall continue my opposition, and I think that I shall have the support of my hon. Friends in this course. If we are not successful in this House in removing the Clause, I hope that attention will be drawn in another place to the debate which has taken place tonight on the Floor of this House.

7.21 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: I should like to make it perfectly clear that I have no connection whatever with the opposition to this Bill which has so far been voiced in this debate. As far as I am concerned, if the city fathers of Rochester want to catch pigeons and starlings, I am all in favour of them doing so. If the citizens of Rochester elect city fathers who want to register hairdressers,

and stop touting, that is no concern of mine, and I do not suppose it is any very great concern of any of my constituents; it is a matter solely for the citizens of Rochester.
I should like to make it clear that neither I nor any of my constituents, whether they be private citizens or whether they have some representative capacity, have any lack of sympathy for the real difficulties of the City of Rochester in connection with housing. We sympathise with those difficulties. What town or what village is there in this country which has not got its housing problem? If it were a question of giving Rochester some small, reasonable assistance to help them in their housing problem, I am sure that my constituents and any local council which represents them would be very glad indeed to give any reasonable assistance within their power.
But our case against this Bill is based upon the fact that the proposal involves taking away far too much land out of the Strood Rural District Council to include it within the boundaries of the City of Rochester. I cannot see any justification for this taking of land, and I can see no case that could be made for it unless it is based on the question of housing.
When we look into the housing figures they turn out to be somewhat as follows. The Rochester City Corporation, to the best of my knowledge and belief, has 1,770 applicants—that is to say, families—on its housing list, and they have 1,067 unfit houses within the City that really ought to be pulled down. Taking those two figures together, they mean that 3,837 new houses are required. If we made no allowance whatever for acres which would, in fact, be cleared by pulling down the unfit houses, it means that they need some 383 acres, at the rate or 10 houses to the acre; or, if we allow for some churches, shops, and so on, they may need some 400 or 500 acres.
If the Rochester City Corporation were to approach the Strood Rural District Council, make out a case and ask for reasonable assistance, I am sure that they would be glad to consider it in a reasonable and generous spirit, as, indeed, the Strood Rural District Council did in 1934 when, at the request of the Rochester City Council, they agreed that 813 acres of land should be transferred from Strood to Rochester mainly for housing purposes
But we are bound to note that as against this housing need for some 383 acres, or a maximum of 500 acres, there are already within the boundaries of the City of Rochester no fewer than 886 vacant acres which, to the casual eye—and, in fact, to expert examination by people with knowledge of local government—appear to be perfectly suitable for building. As against 400 or 500 acres—the maximum housing need they can make out—they have got 800 acres within their boundaries; and they are asking to take no fewer than 8,000 acres from Strood Rural District Council.
This proposal seems to me and to my constituents to be out of all proportion and entirely unreasonable. It would do enormous administrative damage to the Strood Rural District Council to take away from that Council 16 per cent. of its area—and, be it noted, it is area which is the costly thing to administer—23 per cent. of its population and 26 per cent. of its rateable value. Leaving Strood with about seven-eighths of its area, it would take away more than a quarter, leaving less than three-quarters, of its rateable value.
Furthermore, at least half of this land which it is proposed to take into the city boundary is extremely good agricultural land. It is all agricultural land, but at least half of it is the very best that we have got in Kent; it includes early potato land, horticultural land, and land on which marvellous fruit crops are grown. Indeed, the agricultural value of this land is of a very high order.
This proposal would take away the Strood Rural District Council offices, and they would be in the City of Rochester. The Strood Rural District Council rubbish disposal tip would be in the City of Rochester, so that the Strood Council would have to go along, cap in hand, and ask "Please, may we tip our rubbish within your city boundaries?" This proposal would take away the sewage works, including a main sewer which has been put in recently under the 1944 Act by the enterprise of the Strood Rural District Council. If this change came about, this sewer would be serving one-half Strood and one-half Rochester—a situation which, I should think, would give rise to enormous complications.
The inhabitants of the village of Shorne have been subscribing to purchase for

the village a recreation ground, and they would find their recreation ground in the City of Rochester. It is, therefore, small wonder that the number of citizens who, in this tiny village of Shorne, attended a public meeting to protest unanimously against this Bill was four times more numerous than the number of citizens who attended a public meeting in the great City of Rochester to support it.
That takes me to what is perhaps the strongest point, namely, the feelings of the people themselves. I assure the House that the opinion in these villages which it is proposed to take over is overwhelmingly strong and, as far as I can make out, virtually unanimous, as anyone would imagine it would be if he were to take a walk through these rural places. There is, for example, the village of Upnor, where the training ship "Arethusa" is located; one wonders why the Rochester City Council should want to take that village over. What do they want with the village of Cuxton? So one could go on mentioning village after village.
A curious feature of this case is that the City of Rochester have bought by private treaty a large area of the farm land which they now want to take in. There seems to be some sort of argument on these lines—"We bought it; now you ought to allow us to extend our boundaries so that we can have it inside." Nobody quite knows what they want to do with this land. Apparently they do not want to build houses on it—at least, not yet.
There is a rumour that they want to run model farms on it. I am all in favour of almost any sort of public enterprise, and if it is proposed to run some model farms under the Ministry of Agriculture or even under, say, the Devon County Council or any other county council, I believe there is something to be said for it: But good Socialist as I am, it does seem to me that the running of model farms is a very curious function for a city council.
We find that in Clause 55 Rochester takes special power to erect stands on their Cobham Estate. I should like to know to what sort of stands they refer. Are they bandstands or grandstands, or what? Why do the city fathers want to erect these stands? I am wondering very


much whether this business of buying some land, extending their boundaries and saying they want it for their housing needs is not comparable to the little boy who wants a little more cream to finish his sugar and then more strawberries to finish his cream and then some more sugar to finish his strawberries. They seek to take much more land than necessary for their housing needs; when they get the land they will want some more factories to put on it and then they will want some more workers to work in the factories and then more houses to house the workers and then some more land on which to put the houses.
At the end of it, I have a shrewd suspicion that Rochester is aiming to get enough population to be able to claim to be a county borough on its own, without worrying about Gillingham or Chatham, and then they can advertise all over America and say, "Come to Rochester and see the county borough with the longest traffic block in Christendom." That is what will happen if this House and the Committee on this Bill encourages the development which is foreshadowed according to the map prepared by the Rochester City Council.
I expect that a large number of hon. Members have attempted to cross Rochester Bridge by car in the summer. Since the Chancellor's Budget I think there will be even more cars wanting to cross that bridge.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: I thought the hon. Member complained about the increase in the price of petrol.

Sir R. Acland: I had a telegram from a well-known firm whose business is the auctioning of second-hand cars. The telegram said: "All auction prices show sharp upward trend since Budget." As some hon. Members may know, I am personally interested in this question.

Mr. Erroll: May I ask the hon. Member if the firm of auctioneers is on the south coast? If prices have risen, surely that indicates that there will be fewer and not more cars available.

Sir R. Acland: No, it shows that those who are thinking about purchasing a car, instead of buying—

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing about motorcars in this Bill.

Sir R. Acland: Except this, that the number of cars passing across Rochester Bridge even in the present circumstances is phenomenal. I have myself seen that traffic queue reaching right up the High Street of Strood, up a steep hill and away outside the present city boundaries, to the golf course, nearly to Cobham Woods.
Unless hon. Members know the very roundabout detour which will lead them, with a bit of private enterprise, through some back streets to the top of the queue, very often it takes one or two hours to cross this Bridge. In this Bill they are asking to take enough land to build more houses on the west side of the Medway River to serve industries and dockyards and all that one has in Rochester, Gillingham and Chatham.
Suppose there would eventually be 2,000 more people living on the west side, and suppose the traffic queue only exists for 26 weeks of the year, many workers who pass to and from their factories will want to use that bridge once each way per day and if there is only an extra quarter of an hour needed to cross it, taking an average wage of 188s. 6d. for a 44 hour week, it would mean a loss of £27,300 worth of time due to waiting to cross that bridge. I hope that that will be borne in mind if the Committee and anybody on behalf of Rochester City wants to argue on the expenditure which would be involved in making some of the land already in the city boundaries available and suitable for housing.
It may be said, "All this does not matter because we are putting in a bypass." In these days of damping down civil capital expenditure, I should not like to be the one to prophesy the date by which that by-pass will be built. But what if it is built? It is a little difficult to make this point without a map and a blackboard on which to draw the line of the proposed by-pass, but, broadly speaking, there is only one possible line. If one has a by-pass coming down to the south and then across the river eastwards, who would be such a mug as to put all the city expansion on the west of the proposed by-pass so that it will be necessary to cross the by-pass to get into the city? To say there is to be a by-pass is, therefore, no answer to the question of this bridge being a supreme bottleneck.
I am not absolutely persuaded at this moment whether or not I should ask my


hon. Friends to divide against this Second Reading. I may be a little influenced by what the Minister says. Perhaps he will have a word to say on the general principles underlying this business and tell us how he sees this problem—which is only typical of what other cities have tried and will be trying to do in the future—whether he thinks that a city of about 3,000 acres should have attached to it some 8,000 acres of agricultural land and whether, in his view, it would not be wise in Committee to challenge the Rochester City Corporation and their witnesses very acutely and very narrowly, first to show, if they can, that they have not enough vacant space within their existing boundaries for their present needs and then, if they have not, to justify not each quarter of an acre but each 100 acres they claim.
If they can justify that, as far as I and my constituents are concerned, they can have it, if it is for a real need. I hope most earnestly that any Committee of this House, investigating this Bill, will look more than once at the possibility that a city should take in such large numbers of a rural population who do not want to become citizens of a city and which would make the administration of the remainder of this rural area a virtual impossibility.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I rise to oppose the Amendment, but I do not want to follow the line of thought of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) other than to say that, whether or not there is to be an extension of the boundary I think his observations could be used just as much to argue for as against an extension of the city boundary. In supporting this Bill it does not mean that I agree that Rochester should extend its boundaries at the expense of the Borough of Chatham. With that reservation, I support the Bill.
The City of Rochester is a name famous in the history of England. It was founded by the Romans on the great highway leading from London towards the continent of Europe. The first things that impress the visitor approaching the city from London are the fine cathedral and the Norman castle. There is civic and domestic architecture of all styles and periods, which make the ancient City of

Rochester one of the imperishable treasures of our island.
It is to enable the city to be fully governed by the city fathers that this Bill is introduced. It is recognised that obligations are put upon the city and they will not abuse powers given them.
In relation to Clause 91—"Nuisance from pigeons, etc."—it is true that these pigeons are a problem. They are in the castle keep and the corporation believe that they can deal effectively with them if they are given these powers. Pigeons and starlings, as hon. Members know, are birds of great superficial charm but, at the same time, they have marked anti-social tendencies. We want to remove these difficulties so that our city can be much better provided for in the way of amenities for visitors and residents alike.
In days gone by, it used to be a very popular thing for the children to have bags of corn from which to feed the pigeons. That mitigated the problem of the pigeons in the sense that they were well fed and remained close at hand, but nowadays, instead of getting their food in that way, they go into the country and the farms around the city and destroy very substantial amounts of agricultural produce which I think the Minister of Agriculture would say it was vital to preserve in these days of food shortage. It is felt that by this Clause it will assist in keeping down the number of pigeons in the castle keep. It is a problem which should be dealt with and it can be tackled if this Clause is in the Bill.
The hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) referred to Clause 109, which deals with touting and hawking. I share his view that we do not want to be too harsh in administering this Clause, but I am informed that there is rather excessive touting and hawking and that some control is necessary. I have it on the authority of the city council that this control will be exercised with due discretion so as not to interfere too much with the legitimate trade of those who want to follow their calling.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: We share the right hon. Gentleman's hopes that the council will use their powers reasonably. The present council may, but we do not know about future councils. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there


is not sufficient control under existing legislation without this increase in powers?

Mr. Bottomley: I gather that this is necessary.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman will know that his hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), was on the Bourne Committee which drew up model Clauses for this purpose, and this is an up-to-date version of the standard Clause which the Bourne Committee adopted. It can be exercised with due moderation, and the touting and hawking can be limited. It is hoped that by establishing a precedent now, those who control the council in the future will see that it has been established and it will, therefore, be enforced reasonably in the future, too.
Clause 121 refers to hairdressers and barbers. I have listened to the discussion in the House on this subject on other occasions, when it was not a question for the Government of the day but one for general discussion The Clause was then supported on both sides of the House. This Clause about the registration of hairdressers and barbers was inserted in previous Bills and was argued on its merits. Is it to be said that those arguments no longer apply?
It may be argued that under the Public Health Act, 1936, there already exists some method of keeping these establishments clean and hygienic. This has been investigated and it has been found that the point is not covered. If there are to be really clean and hygienic establishments it is felt that there must be some method of inspection, which calls for registration. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will admit that he was exaggerating when he spoke about queues of people lining up outside the Town Hall to register as barbers. The limitation to be imposed is not one of numbers. Rather is it a question of making sure that the establishments in the town are those which reach the reasonable standard required, so as to be sure that when a person goes into a hair-dressers or a barbers he can come out, later reasonably clean.
I hope the hon. Member for Croydon, East will not press his Amendment to a Division. May I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend that his views will be fully considered in Committee

upstairs? He can afford, therefore, to await the results of the Committee before pressing this matter to a Division.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: I support the Second Reading of the Bill, as I always support the Second Reading of Bills which have been promoted by a local authority in what they conceive to be the best interests of the people living within their ambit, no doubt after mature and careful consideration.
I was, however, alarmed to hear the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) suggest that it might have been better had the promoters of the Bill first made some reasonable approach to the rural district authorities. That suggested that the promoters had gone forward with this Measure without having taken what I, as a sympathiser with boroughs and county boroughs in their present difficulties, consider to be the first step which should be taken before they come to this House for permission to extend their boundaries.
Having said that, I repeat that I support the Bill, although I doubt whether I have ever heard a case for an extension Bill so effectively shot down as this was shot down by the hon. Member for Gravesend; nor, I doubt, has any other hon. Member. On almost every aspect of the Bill as presented to the House, he made what seemed to be an unanswerable case, and he did it in spite of the fact that the House seemed to have been made the subject of, not sharp practice—it would be unbecoming to suggest that—but certainly an example of sleight of hand.
I understand that all hon. Members have received a circular on the Bill from the Rochester Corporation, and it is probably not going too far to say that the intention of putting this circular into the hands of hon. Members in time for Second Reading might have been to direct the House into a discussion about the registration of hairdressers, the suppression of ice-cream vendors and the slaughter of pigeons, whereas the real purpose of this Bill is a very wide extension of the boundaries of the City—the sort of extension Bill with which the House is very familiar.
I hope the House will not direct its attention closely to the question of pigeons and hairdressers and ice-cream vendors,


but will bear in mind that this is an extension Bill of a very familiar kind which ought to be considered in the light of what has been said by the hon. Member for Gravesend; and which ought not to be too readily approved, when it reaches Committee upstairs, as I hope it will.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a minute or two, but I must add my protest about these attacks on rural district councils, which make their work increasingly difficult, especially in the very difficult financial times in which we live.
The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), with perhaps more humour than I should have used, made what in my opinion was a very good case and, although I hope he will not divide the House—because the Bill ought to go upstairs in the usual way—nevertheless I hope the arguments affecting the Strood Rural District Council will be taken very carefully into consideration.
I was rather surprised that the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) did not deal with that aspect of the problem at all. He confined himself to the simpler matters of pigeons, starlings and barbers but, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. K. Thompson), the real purpose of the Bill was one on which the right hon. Gentleman did not touch. He merely said he hoped it would be dealt with in Committee.
I thought that, as the representative of the promoters, the right hon. Member would have given us something a little more substantial about the way in which the criticism of the hon. Member for Gravesend will be met. Having said that, however, I do not wish to detain the House, although I hope that when the Bill reaches Committee the points raised by the hon. Member for Gravesend will be carefully considered.

7.50 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I promised to make a short reply to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), on the question of starlings which was, I think, the reason why he put down his Amendment in the first place. The right hon. Member for

Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) has, I think, really justified the inclusion of Clause 91 in the Bill. My right hon. Friend entirely sympathises with the intention of Rochester to try to control, in so far as it can, pigeons and starlings, so that their population does not seriously make depredations on surrounding farmland.
In reply to the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East, has made, I would say that it is true that this Clause will not be particularly effective because, by its terms, it cannot go beyond the Wild Birds Protection Acts, which do make illegal most of the more effective means of controlling starlings and other wild birds.
In our affection for song birds and other kinds of birds we have legislated in such a way that we have now made it illegal, pretty well, to control birds like starlings, whose population has grown to a size at which they have ceased to be a benefit to the community and, undoubtedly, have now become a pest. My hon. Friend's suggestion that they could be controlled in the countryside is not a realistic one. It is true that there is an urban population which goes out every day to feed on the farms—goes out 20, 30, 40 miles daily, and comes back at night to nest in tall buildings around here and in other towns. It is true that they go into the countryside and feed off the fields, but there is no way that the farmers can discourage them other than by shooting at them, and, obviously, with cartridges at 6d. a time it is impossible for them to do that today. So I am afraid that the answer must be, that the Measure which is taken here shows a good intention, and I hope that Rochester will be able to put it into some effect.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Would my hon. Friend confirm that Rochester is within the area of migration of starlings from the Continent of Europe, whence comes foot-and-mouth disease?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, that is so.

7.52 p.m.

Sir William Darling: In fairness to Rochester Corporation, I should like to make one observation following the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. K. Thompson). He charges Rochester


Corporation with having bated its statement with references to pigeons, falconry, hawking and hairdressers. He suggests that the statement was put forward in a rather deceitful form, and that the real idea, of course, is to extend the boundaries of Rochester. Let me point out that the statement which we have received from the promoters of the Bill has not attempted to conceal anything of the kind. It attempts only to deal with Clauses 91, 107 and 121, which were to have been the subject of an instruction to the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). There was no need for them to go at any length into the question of the extension of the boundaries, because that has not been challenged.
I want to be fair to the promoters, who have tried to meet the House by putting forward a reasoned justification for their case, especially against proposals against their case. As one who has served in local government myself, I know the problems and difficulties of local authorities. There may be some hon. Members who have not sat on those authorities, and who, therefore, have not had much experience of their problems and difficulties. That would be my answer to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir A. Acland).
We on this side believe in local government. I hope that local government will be allowed to carry out its intentions and practices without our having to descend to quarrelling over the problem of controlling such things as barbers' itch and the misadventures of pigeons and starlings. I hope that Rochester Corporation will follow nearly the high traditions of local government with which I am familiar, and will leave these things out, but I do think that it is entitled to come to the House and make the statement it has made. I am compelled to say that in defence of Rochester Corporation, as a supporter of local government, and I hope that the corporation, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), will be duly grateful to me for this intervention.

Mr. Erroll: In view of the interesting and valuable discussion which has taken place, on behalf of my hon. Friends, I should like to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Question, "That 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and Committed.

WEST HARTLEPOOL EXTENSION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

7.56 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: I hope that this Bill, in whose favour I propose to say a few words, will have the same successful conclusion as that with which we have just dealt. I can assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), that there is no complication in it about hairdressers, pigeons or starlings. It is a plain, simple Bill to secure the extension of the County Borough of West Hartlepool.
The Bill has two main proposals. It proposes the amalgamation of the existing Borough of Hartlepool with the existing County Borough of West Hartlepool; and it also proposes to extend the boundaries of the new county borough some distance into the existing area of the Stockton Rural District Council.
To deal with the first point, the amalgamation of the Borough of Hartlepool with the County Borough of West Hartlepool, for all practical purposes at the present moment the two towns are physically one. They form one Parliamentary constituency, and I have the honour to represent it. For all business, commercial, trading, cultural, and recreational purposes the two separate local authority areas are, in fact, physically one town. It is only in the case of local government administration that there are two separate pieces of organisation, governing what otherwise is physically one town.
The Borough of Hartlepool has a population of some 17,000 and it covers an area of 1,841 acres, of which, roughly, 400 acres are either foreshore or covered by tidal waters, which reduces its effective size to some 1,441 acres. It is true that the Borough of Hartlepool has a long and honoured tradition in civil and com-


mercial affairs. It has been a municipal borough since 1201, and has played its part in the history of this country.
However, it is not intended in this Bill to lose the honoured name of Hartlepool. Within the Bill there is a provision that, subject to the other parts being agreed to, the new county borough is to be known as the County Borough of Hartlepool. It will, therefore, carry on the name and, I believe, all the traditions associated with this old borough.
From time to time, for the last 65 years, there have been efforts locally, between the two authorities, to reach some measure of agreement, but until 1947 complete agreement had not been reached between those two local authorities about amalgamation. On 8th May, 1947, the Hartlepool Borough Council passed a resolution, by 17 votes to one, in favour of amalgamation.
Hartlepool, in earlier years, was a separate police authority. The Police Act of recent years has transferred that duty to the county council. It was an education authority, but the 1944 Education Act transferred that power to the county council. It was a health authority. Steadily, over the years, this small borough council has been losing its powers, not to its near neighbour two miles away but to Shire Hall in Durham, 25 miles away.
Both authorities in 1947 submitted observations to the Local Government Boundary Commission, based on the desirability of the two boroughs being amalgamated. The Boundary Commission sent an assistant commissioner into the area to hold an inquiry. In page 51, Appendix B of the 1947 report, these words appear:
…as would West Hartlepool and Hartlepool, after union as one borough by an order of the Commission.
The Local Government Boundary Commission thought it was desirable, and that a case had been made out, for the amalgamation of this borough and county borough into one county borough. The Commission were satisfied that there was an overwhelming case for amalgamation. It is generally believed by the people in the locality that had the Local Government Boundary Commission been permitted to continue its work and had

the 1947 report been implemented, there would, long ere now, have been one local government authority for this area.
I ought to mention, in common fairness that, subsequent to 1947, the present Hartlepool Borough Council passed a resolution, by 13 votes to 11, against amalgamation, and that there is at present a petition against the Bill. That, I suggest, is a very substantial reason why the Bill ought to have a Second Reading, that the Committee upstairs might inquire into the reason for the change of heart of the Hartlepool Borough Council between 1947 and 1952.
Towards the end of the year, in 1944, both these councils, together with the Easington Rural Council and the Durham County Council, established a joint planning committee. The purpose of the committee was to examine the possibilities and to plan the area. Late in 1946, or early in 1947, the committee decided to appoint a planning consultant. In 1947, Mr. Max Lock, with his associates, who had been successful a year or two earlier in drafting a very fine plan for Middlesbrough, was appointed planning consultant to plan the area. He and his associates began the social, economic and geographical survey of these two boroughs and the surrounding country.
In 1948, the plan was accepted, and printed in a volume which has been broadcast fairly liberally in the area. The volume contains, in its very first paragraph, the important observation that the committee had been charged with the responsibility of conducting a survey of the boroughs of Hartlepool, and a rural survey of the surrounding country
in regard to education, geography, history, industry, port trade, populations, daily movements to and from work, neighbourhoods, housing, open spaces, health services, land use, floor space and retail trade.
The area of the survey was the two boroughs and the seven surrounding parishes that now lie within the area of the Easington Rural Council or in the Stockton Rural Council area.
I would quote from the first paragraph of this document one or two facts. Mr. Max Lock and his associates, in the very beginning of this publication, had this to say after they had completed their survey:
For the two towns "—


they are talking about Hartlepool and West Hartlepool—
to play their proper role in a rapidly changing economic scene, four things are necessary; first, the amalgamation of the borough of Hartlepool with the county borough of West Hartlepool and the extension of the boundary; second, stabilisation of the balance of industry and employment and re-construction of the docks; third, re-construction of the blighted areas; fourth, provision of social, cultural and recreational services, according to present standards.
In the very next paragraph, entitled "Extension," there appear these very important words:
To re-house the people now living in substandard conditions, almost a square mile of land will have to be bought outside the present county borough boundary. Agricultural interests will have to give way to necessary extensions, but not indiscriminately. A detailed survey of soils and farm boundaries undertaken with the help of the Durham Agricultural Committee and the Soil Survey of England and Wales has determined our policy for the development of town and country.
The proposals contained in the Bill are based on these recommendations of Max Lock and his associates. It therefore might be argued that the Bill, which I hope will get its Second Reading, is the logical next step in the implementation of the Lock plan and that without the Bill, without amalgamation, and without borough extension the Lock plan cannot possibly hope to succeed. I suggest that the Second Reading and passing of the Bill into law are the logical next step.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: Does the Lock plan suggest taking part of the Stockton Rural District into the plan, or the whole of it?

Mr. Jones: I am coming to that point in a moment, and I think I will prove to the hon. Gentleman that it proposes to take a very small part of the Stockton rural area.
I now come to the second principle contained in the Bill, the extension of the boundaries into the area of the Stockton Rural District Council. Although it is suggested in the petition against the Bill that the total added areas amount to 7,272 acres, if we deduct the 1,841 acres which now comprise the borough of Hartlepool, that leaves 5,430 acres to be taken from Stockton Rural Council's area. Of those 5,400-odd acres, 801 acres are either foreshore or land which is covered by tidal waters, and 218 further

acres are already owned by the West Hartlepool County Borough Council, because it forms part of the airport.
A further 440 acres are covered by the Airfield Protection Order which has been in existence for some considerable time and precludes the building of any structure more than 10 feet in height over these 440 acres. If we take all those together, there are 1,500 acres to be deducted from the 5,400, making less than 4,000 acres of actual building land, or land that has been developed in any way, other than the way in which it is developing now.
How is this area of land made up? I will quote from a Press report of what the Clerk of the Stockton Rural District Council said to his Council:
Mr. France gave details of the Council's land to be included in the proposed extention. At Greatham there are 344 houses of a rateable value of £7,212 and an estimated population of 1,410, and at Brierton there is a quarry of a rateable value of £104 but no population. No houses rateable value or population in the land proposed to come from Dalton Piercy parish. At Seaton it is proposed to take over the whole parish. Forty-five houses are included 27 of which are void and the rateable value is £1,816.
What the Clerk of the Council omitted to mention was that in this area there are four industrial undertakings and the workpeople are resident within the county borough of West Hartlepool. For example, at Greatham there is a salt works employing about 1,000 girls, of whom more than 95 per cent. travel from the West Hartlepool County Borough each day to the factory. There is at Graythorpe in the parish of Seaton a ship repair yard which has for many years been within the borough of West Hartlepool. It is having to extend outside the county borough because there was no suitable land within the borough on which to extend it.
I suggest it is not unreasonable to argue that, where an industrial undertaking draws some 95 per cent. of its personnel from a neighbouring county borough area, which has to provide educational, housing and all other amenities, the industrial hereditament ought to be within the county borough. It is not unreasonable to argue that where they have to provide the amenities they should at least have the rateable value which might accrue from the industrial hereditament itself.
The Durham County Council, who are petitioning against this Bill, have some objections which were stated quite shortly by Councillor Cunningham at a meeting of the Durham County Council on 10th January, 1952. I hope that my Government and county friends will note what he has to say:
I think it is essential that, as a County Council, we should attempt to retain this land, because in this area in the near future there is to much industrial development,"—
Not now, but some time in the future, so hold on to it in case something happens to it. He continues:
the rateable value of which would accrue to the County Council…
It is true that the British Electricity Authority proposes at some future date to build a new power station in the parish of Seaton, but that will not rob the Durham County Council of its share of the total rates because, as a result of recent legislation, it matters not where the power station is actually located since each authority gets its share of the rates. So from the point of view of the power station, it will not make any difference whether it is built on this land or any other land.
May I tell the House what the position will be if these extentions are granted, both as regards Durham County Council and Stockton Rural Council? I have in my hand a schedule which has been prepared showing that at present the administrative county of Durham has a total area of 620,869 acres. If all these extentions are granted it will still have 613,597 acres or 98 per cent. The rateable value before any changes take place is £4,028,038. If the changes take place, it will still be £3,938,861 or will lose 2.21 per cent. of its total rateable value.
May I give the House a more remarkable figure still? At present the rateable value per head of the population in County Durham is £4 9s. 3d. If this area is extracted and also its rateable value, they will still have £4 9s. 1d. per head. I suggest that nobody on either side of the House could suggest that the detachment of 2d. per head of its rateable value, or 2.21 per cent., will destroy Durham County Council as an entity.
What is the Stockton Rural Council's position? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) will be particularly interested.

The present area of the Stockton Rural Council is 40,656 acres. If the 5,431 acres are taken away, it will still have 35,225 acres, or will be three times as big geographically as the new West Hartlepool County Borough and will lose 13.35 per cent. of its total acreage. The rateable value at present is £58,725. When it has lost what is proposed to be deducted from it, if the House agrees, it will still have £49,593. By no stretch of imagination can it be argued that a rural district council with £50,000 of rateable value will be destroyed.
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman something much more interesting. The present rateable value per head of the population in the Stockton rural area is £6 19s. 5d. If these 5,000 acres are granted to the Hartlepool County Borough, the rateable value per head will rise to £7 2s. 10d. In other words, the rateable value of the Stockton rural area will increase, not diminish, as a result of this alteration.

Mr. Colegate: Surely the hon. Member will agree that the revenue of the Stockton Rural District Council is likely to go down by some £5,000 or £6,000? And if that be the case, how can these smaller local authorities carry on in these difficult times if their finances are to be detached in that way?

Mr. Jones: That is fairly obvious, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if it loses 5,400 acres of its territory it will not need to provide the services in those areas and will, therefore, not require that finance. After all, if it does lose that, I have proved that, so far as the district council itself is concerned, it will have a higher rateable value per head of the population afterwards than before.

Mr. Colegate: Surely the hon. Member would not seriously argue that a local authority which has part of its revenue taken away can then reduce the salary of its medical officer, its clerk, and so on, in order to come within the compass of its income. For a local authority with established services to reduce its income is to threaten the whole structure of the local authority of the area.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Member has selected a bad example, because the medical officer of health happens to be a part-time medical officer, and resides


in Hartlepool. If the authority gets a higher rateable value per head of the population as a result of these alterations, it is not being worsened.
There are six petitions against the Bill. With three of them I do not need to bother now, because they are peculiarly matters for the Committee upstairs; they are narrow in character and are much better dealt with there. There are, however, three petitions of a general character: from the Hartlepool Borough Council, from the Durham County Council, and from the Stockton Rural Council.
Hartlepool Borough generally opposed amalgamation but has no observations to make about the borough extension. The Stockton Rural Council has, I gather, some serious objections to the borough extension but has no objection to amalgamation. Durham County Council, I understand, has objections to both.
These petitions could be far more efficiently dealt with in Committee upstairs than in a Second Reading debate of this kind. For example, the Hartlepool Borough Council ought in fairness to itself to be given the right to brief its experts, if necessary, to appear before the Committee upstairs, to explain why, after taking part in the Lock Plan and approving of it, now have a change of mind and oppose the proposals. It would be interesting for the Committee upstairs to have before it the witnesses of Hartlepool Borough Council so that they may explain why they have changed their opinion.
I have no single word to offer in criticism of the manner in which the Durham County Council conducts its affairs. I believe that it does so in a manner comparable with every other county council and far better than a good many. But even with that record, they are not entitled without some comment to put into their petition a paragraph of this kind:
Your Petitioners submit that the Corporation "—
that is, the West Hartlepool Corporation
are not equipped to administer as satisfactorily as your Petitioners an area such as the Corporation propose to add to the borough. Moreover, the added area would lose the advantage of local government carried on by persons engaged solely in providing for the needs of their localities and in close and

continual touch with the ratepayers and inhabitants thereof.
I do not know how many hon. Members in the House tonight know the geography of this part of the country, but the distance from Greatham village to the municipal buildings at West Hartlepool is under 21 miles; yet the distance from Greatham to Shire Hall, Durham, is nearer 25 miles. How it is possible for an authority located 25 miles away from an area to claim that it is more competent to manage a village of this kind than is an authority only two miles away, I quite fail to understand.
As I have indicated, these extensions to the borough boundary, as adumbrated in the Lock Plan, are badly needed for rehousing, for educational development, for open spaces for the citizens of the county borough and, last but certainly not least, for the normal industrial development of that part of the country.
The single, simple issue which the House has to decide tonight is whether this county borough is entitled to have the Bill read a Second time, and thus to enable the council to make its case before an impartial Committee of the House. I suggest that the statement I have made indicates quite clearly that the council is entitled to have such a presentation.
I invite the House to consider what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) had to say about this aspect of the case on 14th March, 1951, when he occupied the Treasury Bench. The occasion was the Second Reading of a Bill by the Sheffield City Council to extend its area. My right hon. Friend had this to say:
I suggest we take the proposed extensions as they come; judge each of them on its own merits, commit ourselves to no detail "—

Mr. Hugh Dalton: Quite right.

Mr. Jones: but if a prima facie case is shown, let there be a Second Reading."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 1637.]
I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments. I claim with modesty that I have, at least, made a prima facie case for the West Hartlepool Extension Bill. I therefore invite the House, having listened to my case to go into the Lobby, if we divide, in support of the Second Reading of the Bill.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. J. Slater: I rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.
This is the first time I have ever sought to intercede on behalf of the Durham County Council as an interested party, but before becoming a Member of the House I was a member of that county authority and for a period of three years was the Vice-Chairman of its Highways and Bridges Committee and a member of its Parliamentary Committee and of the major committees attached to that authority. Therefore, I claim that as a past member of the authority, I know something about its administration within its county boundaries on behalf of the people who reside therein.
I go so far as to say that if the Bill is carried tonight in the interests of West Hartlepool, the high standards that have been set by Durham County Council on behalf of the people resident within the Borough of Hartlepool, and within the precincts of Greatham and the other parishes, will not be surpassed if they have to come under the control and administration of the West Hartlepool Corporation.
I should like to pay tribute to the helpful speech that my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) has made in the case he has endeavoured to present to the House on behalf of the West Hartlepool Corporation, but I think that every Member who listened to that speech would have been led to believe that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools is in a rather difficult position in seeking to argue the case for this Bill being given a Second Reading.
The reason is that his constituents are divided on the subject. There are 59,000 Parliamentary electors in his constituency, of whom 48,770 are in the county borough whose council has promoted this Bill. I am not prepared to argue on this point on the number of electors, but the figure I have is 11,163 in the municipal borough whose council opposes the Bill.
The Stockton Rural District Council, in my constituency, with Hartlepool Borough Council, has launched petitions with the county authority against this Bill. It may not be often that we have a unanimous decision in Durham County Council on matters arising therein. If ever any authority has received wide public-

ity throughout the country because of certain actions taken in relation to policies they regard as vital to the administration of a county, it has been Durham County Council.
However, on this particular issue members of Durham County Council are unanimous in their decision in seeking to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill and, in common with other county councils throughout the country, they view with the gravest concern the ultimate effect on county administration if constant aggression on the part of county boroughs is allowed to continue.
We have five county boroughs in the geographical County of Durham and, as a result of an extension of boundaries, the County Council of Durham have had to give up no fewer than 11,000 acres in the last 30 years. I wish to quote an extract from the report of the Local Government Boundary Commission for 1947, which states, under the heading of, "Conflicts over boundaries":
Ever since 1888 conflicts between counties and county boroughs over boundary extensions and the aggression of county boroughs has been a constant feature of local government. These difficulties have been mainly created by the growth of population, changes in its distribution following movements of industry, the growth of urban at the expense of rural population and other circumstances over which local authorities have had little or no control.
The existence of autonomous and ever-growing county boroughs made conflict inevitable, and the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government, while making it more difficult to secure county borough status for extensions of boundary, did little to improve the atmosphere between the two parties.
The heavy burdens on the ratepayers of both parties caused by the expense of an opposed Bill and of settling claims for compensation after a successful Bill has been serious enough. But what has been most harmful has been the consequential antagonism between county and county borough councils, both as classes and individually.
Between successive applications for extensions, administration on both sides of the boundary has necessarily been influenced by the knowledge that the opposing party would use any facts which appeared to support or hinder future applications. Correspondence has often been 'at arm's length'; the citing of services near the common boundary has been unduly influenced; and there has often been a reluctance by county districts to avail themselves of services, e.g., sewage disposal, which the neighbouring county borough could have given to them. This atmosphere has seriously militated against effective co-operation in town and country planning.


I agree whole-heartedly with those expressions of opinion. I believe that mere adjustments of boundaries can be no solution to this problem, whether it be real or imaginary, of county administration. I am more convinced than ever that until Her Majesty's Government have determined the future pattern of local government, piecemeal extensions of county boroughs should cease to be permitted unless they can be agreed between the parties. Let it be said that Durham County Council have never yet been unreasonable in these matters.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: By "parties" my hon. Friend means the parties themselves?

Mr. Slater: Yes, not the Tory Party. As recently as last year the county council agreed to extension of the county boroughs of Sunderland and South Shields and the corporations of these two towns were able to proceed with their extension Bills without opposition from the county. On Monday, 25th February, 1952, reported in HANSARD, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate), the Minister of Local Government and Housing, moving the Second Reading of the Town Development Bill, stated that that Bill neither detracted from the right of a county borough to come to Parliament for extension of its boundaries, nor the right of a rural district council to defend itself if it wished to do so against such a proposal.
Therefore, I submit that if the provisions of the Town Development Bill, whenever they become effective, could be applied to the County Borough of West Hartlepool and the other local authorities concerned, no question of altering boundaries need arise. My hon. Friend has endeavoured to build up a case about the condition of certain property within his borough boundary, but West Hartlepool Corporation cannot plead even at the moment any overspill population in aid of their case. The only property they hold in the area which they are seeking to acquire is a civil airport in the parish of Greatham—

Mr. D. Jones: If the West Hartlepool Corporation cannot provide an overspill immediately, will my hon. Friend explain how it is that in the Durham County Provisional Plan they have already made provision for the overspill from West Hartlepool Borough?

Mr. Slater: Will my hon. Friend wait until I have completed my speech? He will get an answer to the question he raised, and in all probability it may uproot some of the arguments he has put forward in relation to this application.
I repeat that West Hartlepool Corporation cannot at the moment plead overspill and that the only property they hold in the area is a civil airport in the parish of Greatham. This civil airport, about which they talk so much, is leased to a charter company and not operated by the corporation themselves. Not only has there been no development outside the county borough boundaries, but there is room for great development within the existing boundaries. I am given to understand that, with the co-operation of the county council, development plans have been prepared—and they have received the approval of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—to meet the requirements of this county borough over a period of 20 years. The only provisions in those plans for what might be regarded as an overspill is a comparatively small area of land on the west of the county borough for a neighbourhood unit at Owton in the administrative county.
It is equally true that the development plan which the Borough Council of Hartlepool have prepared can be carried out perfectly well without amalgamation with West Hartlepool. As has been stated, the Hartlepool Corporation and the Stockton Rural District Council oppose the Bill. By this Bill Hartlepool will lose the identity which it has had for many centuries, long before West Hartlepool came into existence, and Stockton Rural District will be deprived of a large part of its district with great rateable value potentialities.
I feel that it is unreasonable to suggest that a rural community such as that in the village of Greatham—and let me remind my hon. Friend that I have received letters from Greatham—has, or could ever have anything in common with an industrialised county borough. It is not surprising that there is no inclination on the part of the inhabitants to do other than oppose their transfer to the county borough, particularly when the corporation can produce no evidence that they can offer to the people concerned any better services than they enjoy at the


moment. In my opinion, we have here a glaring example of a county borough seeking to extend its boundaries for no better reasons than those of self-aggrandisement; unless, as is more than possible, they are reasons of self-preservation.
What are they seeking to do? They are seeking to enlarge their area to nearly two-and-a-half times what it is today and to increase their population by 25 per cent. In the last 30 years their population has increased by less than 4,000, and there is no evidence at the moment that the Borough of West Hartlepool has burst its boundaries. The only suggestion that they ever will do so is contained in the development plans which my hon. Friend wishes to know something about. Those plans were designed by the planning experts to take effect over no less a period than 20 years, and even those plans do not constitute a reason why the boundaries should be altered.
It was stated in evidence before the Royal Commission on Local Government in 1925 that the ruling principle which the Minister of Health bore in mind in determining applications for provisional orders for extensions of county borough boundaries was whether the effect of granting the applications would be to secure efficient and economical local government with reasonable regard to the wishes of the inhabitants.
This is still a sound principle, and if it is applied to the West Hartlepool Extension Bill that Bill must fail. I submit to the House that there is not a shred of evidence that the inhabitants of the proposed added areas would enjoy more efficient and economical local government under the corporation than they do at present; and the inhabitants most certainly do not desire to go into the county borough.
My hon. Friend said it was not unreasonable to argue that where an authority is evolving housing and educational facilities within its administrative area they should be allowed to go outside their boundaries to embrace these facilities. In my constituency I have one of the biggest industrial hereditaments in the county, I.C.I. Moreover, my hon. Friend seeks to use in his argument the case of the Cerebos salt works and the percentage of the population employed there. He

said we had drawn this particular force away from the Borough of West Hartlepool. I am beginning to wonder whether he has taken a census of the people of Greatham at the Cerebos salt works.
It is all very well to make these applications for extension of boundaries as they are seeking to do under this Bill. But I am convinced that one of the principal reasons the West Hartlepool Borough Council are seeking to present this Bill is of the possibility of the industrial transference of their particular borough into another part of the Stockton Rural District within the next few years. It is just that they are wanting to secure the kind of industry that might seek to develop in other parts of the country, and, therefore, I hope that hon. Members will follow me into the Lobby against the Second Reading of this Bill.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. S. Storey: I rise to support this Bill, not only because, from my knowledge of the area, I regard it as a reasonable proposal, but, as a representative of a non-county borough, I feel that it is in the interests of all county and non-county boroughs that such a Bill as this should not be blocked in this House, as this Bill has been blocked, but should be sent to a Select Committee for proper examination.
Apart from this aspect of the matter, from my own local knowledge, gained from business connections with the Hartlepools—and here let me say that I stand to gain nothing from the Bill, because under the Max Lock plans to which the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) referred, my works would be taken from a desirable and central site and deposited I know not where—I consider this a reasonable proposal which should be sent to a Select Committee for further examination.
The two towns do form a closely-knit area. Together, they have a population of only 90,000. For administrative convenience, economy, and prestige, for industrial development and for economic planning, I think they should be considered as a whole. Already, they share an adjoining trading estate, they have a joint transport system, and many of the inhabitants of both towns gain their livelihood from the activities centred round the common port.
I quite understand the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) saying that the people of Hartlepool do not wish to lose their identity. I agree that they have a long history and a Charter going back 750 years, but, as the hon. Gentleman who represents The Hartlepools pointed out, West Hartlepool has met that cause of hesitation generously by agreeing that the new borough should be known as Hartlepool, and not as West Hartlepool.
As regards the county area which West Hartlepool propose to take in, it has been made quite clear that it will mean very little loss of rateable value to the county area, and it is an area which, in my opinion, is vitally important to the industrial development and to the amenities of the borough. After all, West Hartlepool has spent a great deal of money on the development of its seaside resort at Seaton Carew, and it is only right that the foreshore and beaches as far as the mouth of the Tees should be included in the area which the local authority controls.
For these reasons, I feel that the proposals put forward by the West Hartlepool Corporation are reasonable, and I hope that this House will see that tonight they are sent to a Select Committee for further examination.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Murray: I wish to associate myself with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) in opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill, and to underline some of the important points which are exercising our minds on this issue.
It was my privilege, before coming to this House, to serve as a member of the Durham County Council for over 17 years. During that time I had the pleasure of serving on many important committees, including the committee whose duty it was to deal with Bills similar to this one. During those 17 years applications were received from boroughs contingent on the county administrative area, and usually an amicable settlement was reached.
The Durham County Council has always been very reasonable in matters like this; they have never been hard taskmasters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said, during the

last two years authorities applied for extensions and were allowed to proceed without any opposition from the county council. In fact, when I was on the county council I thought they were far too generous on many occasions.
Be that as it may, we of the counties are beginning to wonder how long these applications are to be allowed to continue and what is to be the final result of the tail wagging the dog. When I was a member of the county council I often asked where the stopping place was to be. When do we call a halt? Or will there ever be finality on this issue? To my mind, these are very important questions. I realise that it is essential to have good will among neighbouring local authorities, but I also realise the possibility that in time the county boroughs will take over the county councils if such a policy of infiltration is allowed to continue unchecked and unabated.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) made a grand speech. I enjoyed every minute of it, and have no complaint about the way in which he put his case. But as I sat listening to him I was interested to notice that he very carefully avoided telling the House the exact position. I do not say that he did so deliberately, but that is what he did. I certainly admire his courage, but I do not envy him his position on this issue. He must find himself between the devil and the deep blue sea.
I am informed that nearly one-fifth of the electors in his constituency are in a municipal borough whose council opposes this Bill. If the aim of this Bill is to acquire for the sake of acquiring, then to my mind the proposition is regrettable and should not be tolerated; it is then an iniquitous Bill which must be thrown out lock, stock and barrel because of its unworthiness. Such a Measure should not have been promoted.
Let my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools and his corporation be under no illusions about the Durham County Council. They are unanimous in their opposition, Tories and all, and will fight the proposals with all the power they possess.
This is a very important Measure, and very important issues are involved, not


only for Durham but for county councils throughout the land, who view with considerable concern the situation which is developing. The Hartlepool Corporation and the Stockton Rural District Council both oppose this Bill, along with the Durham County Council. A trinity in opposition, if one likes, all having much to lose.
In the case of the Borough of Hartlepool, I was interested in the hon. Member's description, but I look at the matter from a different angle from the hon. Member. In this case, none is to be left. They are to be swallowed outright just like an oyster. No double bite at the cherry in this case. They are not coming back any more: they are going to have it all in the first slice. The child is to take over the parent. Local pride is to have no consideration at all. Not even the fact that the Borough received its first Royal Charter in the year 1201 and only celebrated its 750th anniversary a very short time ago is to be considered.
On historical grounds I suggest that this House should recognise the fact that Hartlepool existed long before West Hartlepool. Let it also be remembered that some of the areas West Hartlepool seeks to acquire have nothing at all in common with West Hartlepool, nor can this county borough claim to have burst its boundaries. Indeed, I think that is the trouble of it. It never seems to have tried to do that. If it has, I should like to be informed where such an attempt has taken place.
I was interested and am still interested to know where the overspill is. I thought the arguments of the hon. Member were very diplomatic indeed. We usually hear—and I always used to listen very carefully to them when I sat on these committees—grand arguments put forward about the overspill into the other district's area. But the hon. Member avoided that tonight. He said very little about overspill. In fact, it is hypothetical. What it is going to be—or what we are going to do. That was the strength of his case. It reminded me of the motto:
Silence is golden.
But the maxim is an old 'un.
Little Tommy South
Had the money in his mouth.
Yes, silence is golden.
Another argument usually used with great force is the amount of development

that has taken place outside the county area. We did not hear a word from the hon. Member about any development which has taken place outside the area. Another strong point usually advanced is the rateable value that has been created outside the area. Silence again. Nothing was said about rateable value that has been created outside the area. On this the hon. Member was very subdued and silent because from what I am told and from what I have read I think it is true to say that there is no such development at all. In fact, I am informed that there is still room for further development within the existing boundaries.
Further, I want to emphasise—because I think it is very important—that an agreement has recently been reached between the county council and the county borough regarding development which has been approved by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that will meet all the requirements in this particular area for the next 20 years.

Mr. D. Jones: May I interrupt my hon. Friend? I do not know whether he heard, but I did read from the Lock plan. If he will listen I will read again from the plan drawn up in 1947. It says:
To rehouse the people now living in substandard conditions, almost a square mile of land will have to be bought outside the pre sent County Borough boundary.

Mr. Murray: Exactly. I heard all my hon. Friend said, and I referred to it by saying his case was hypothetical. Why have they not done this before? They have had the opportunity nobody was stopping them. The county council have always been reasonable in meeting county boroughs where application has been made, as shown by experience one year ago when they granted two extensions and this House knew nothing at all about them. Therefore, my hon. Friend cannot get away with that one.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Sedgefield when he said that during the last 30 years the increase in the population has been less than 4,000. I emphasise that figure because when one works it out very carefully it really means an increase of less than three per week over the last 30 years in the population of the county borough. What a county borough! I leave the House to draw its own conclusions, but without being rude


I would say it was a standstill borough—-no production whatever.
But let us not think too much about municipal power. What about the people? It is they who matter. Do they stand to gain a more economical or more efficient administration? Of course they do not Stockton Rural District Council are actually asked to give up 4,629 acres of land, more land than the county borough now actually possess. They are also asked to give up £9,132 of rateable value. The yield from a 1d. rate is £239, so this will mean a further reduction to that small rural district council of £36. Would any hon. Member suggest that taking such a huge slice from any rural area will make for good and efficient government, which I understand is one of the most important points in considering matters of this kind?
Does it make for good and efficient government? Can anyone wonder that the owners, ratepayers and inhabitants of the district are all strongly opposed to the proposals in this Bill? I submit that no one can justify disturbing a local government administration which has proved both efficient and economical. I am sure that in all parts of the House we can all agree about one thing, and that is that the county borough have certainly a splendid appetite. Their total requirements are 6,101 acres of land, 18,699 persons—14,699 more persons than they have created themselves for the last 30 years—and £89,177 of rateable value, which again is more than one-fifth of their present rateable value.
This Bill should fail because it is unnecessary, unreasonable and cannot be justified, and because the county borough have nothing to offer these areas which they seek to take over which is not enjoyed by those areas today. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools did not tell us any of the advantages which the inhabitants of the added areas would receive when they were taken over. On the contrary, this Bill would impose a serious financial burden on the ratepayers in the added areas, and would necessitate them contributing to the expenditure incurred in connection with the administration of the county borough from which they would receive no benefit.
In fact, I understand that if this extension were granted, the rural district council would have a reduction in their

general revenue account of over £6,000. Under Section 11 of the 1948 Act, no compensation would be payable by way of a financial adjustment in respect of the increased burden on the ratepayers as a consequence of this Bill. That is very important indeed.
All the facts of the case which have been elaborated in detail by previous speakers prove quite conclusively that this Bill is an ill-conceived Measure which cannot improve the existing structure of local government or make for better administration for the people of the areas concerned. This Measure, as well as being ill-conceived, is ill-timed. Let us have no more of this piecemeal snatching and grabbing. If and when the time is opportune we should look at the structure of local government as a whole by all means let us do so, but in the meantime let us resist the pleas of those who would seek to anticipate what the findings of such an inquiry would be.
There is definite resistance here. Let no hon. Member make any mistake on that point. What is asked today is no solution of the problem of county borough administration. Until Her Majesty's Government have determined the future pattern of local government, such applications as this should be refused unless agreement can be reached by both parties. If the Measure proposed is successful, it will only serve to embitter an inevitable conflict the cause of which must be firmly placed at the doors of some county boroughs which would seek power for power's sake.
The House is being asked to give this Bill a Second Reading so that the Committee may go into all the pros and cons of the case. I suggest that this House, having heard all the arguments for and against, can now make up its mind, and I am sure it will do what it thinks right and proper. Our opposition to this Bill is now on record. Therefore, I say to the House: why send it to another place? Why waste thousands of pounds of public money? Why make a beanfeast for the lawyers? Why rush a Bill like this at the present time when we are all fighting for our very lives?
Provision has been made by the Durham County Council and the county borough for all the development that they require—housing or anything else—for the next 20 years. Surely that is enough to


be going on with until some Government has at least decided what the future of local government is to be.
What does the Report of the 1947 Local Government Boundary Commission say? It is only a very short quotation.
It is, in our view, a matter of first importance to the future of local government that this very natural antagonism should cease, and that these frequent battles should not take place.
I agree with the Boundary Commission. Therefore I say that this House should reject this proposal outright tonight. I say, with great sincerity and conviction, backed up by my own experience in local government, that we should oppose this Bill with vigour, since it is a Measure which promotes self power without regard to co-operation, good will, good government or even sweet reasonableness.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: I think the House will agree that we have heard an extremely enjoyable and forceful speech from the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Murray), but I listened in vain to his speech and that of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) for any point of principle which ought really to weigh with this House on a Second Reading of a Bill of this sort. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West, said that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) was between the devil and the deep blue sea. I knew that The Hartlepools was near the deep blue sea, but in casting my eyes in the other direction I found great difficulty in discovering whom he was talking about.
He also seemed to suggest that the rate of fertility in The Hartlepools did not justify the extension or changing of their boundaries. That is a point of principle, if one is going to accept it, but I ask this House to say that it is quite a novel principle that there must be a certain rate of fertility before any local authority is entitled to come here and ask for some relief.
We have had canvassed between the hon. Member for The Hartlepools, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West and the hon. Member for Sedgefield, a number of matters of detail about which they are clearly of different opinions. There is the question whether this reform is really wished for locally; the question

whether there is a prospective or present overspill; the question whether there is still room for development within the present boundaries and, finally, the effect on county administration and county borough administration.
I suggest that we cannot possibly judge points of detail of those sorts, particularly when we have three respected hon. Members differing, as they do, with their great local knowledge. I suggest that that is a conclusive argument in favour of saying that this Bill should have a Second Reading, that it should go upstairs with these important points of detail and then be canvassed before a Committee of this House sitting in a much calmer and more judicial atmosphere than that which is found on a Second Reading in the Chamber itself.
The only point of principle which really arose out of the speeches of the opponents of this Bill—and I took it down as the hon. Member for Sedgefield said it—was that there should be no extensions of county borough boundaries until the Government had carried out a Measure of local government reform. We have been waiting for that Measure of local government reform for a very long time now. Looking at my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, I see that his face is quite impassive, but I think it is quite likely that we may have to wait a considerably longer time. I suggest that it is quite impossible to hold up all these measures of local boundary adjustment until this House has debated and passed into law a general Measure. It is for those reasons that I shall vote in favour of this Bill.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: I am very pleased to be able to follow the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon), because I dare say this will be one of the few occasions in this Parliament on which we shall be able to support the same Measure. I am very sorry that I have to part company from my very loyal and well-respected friends from the County of Durham who have spoken against this Measure. We have heard some fine robust speeches and it is evident that there is no closed shop on this issue.
I represent, on the one hand, a County of Durham Constituency which, neverthe-


less, is a non-county borough, and I feel that I have to have one foot in each camp on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) has to be even more careful because he represents, on the one hand, a county borough and, on the other hand, a non-county borough; and the county borough are in the majority, and they are the people who are promoting the Bill. We all admired the very great reasonableness of his case and the sincerity with which he put it forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Murray) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedge-field (Mr. Slater) spoke about the reasonable attitude of the county on this question. That is not in doubt—until it comes to the, House; but I scarcely believe that we can class the speeches we have heard as being eminently reasonable, and I therefore suggest, following the example of the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West, that we have to approach this matter in a calmer and more judicial manner.
First of all, I should like to try to discover what we are trying to do in local government today. It seems to me that we should aim at achieving well-balanced communities where there is the possibility of a real, individual interest in the affairs of the community. We have to avoid, on the one hand, any parish pump politics and, on the other hand, the remoteness of control which exists today in some county authorities.
All we have to decide, on the speeches we have heard, is this: has a prima facie case been made why the Bill should go to a Select Committee upstairs? We are not concerned with the individual items of the Bill. Very few of us know the local characteristics of the areas concerned and, on the conflicting evidence on the two sides which we have been given, it is quite clear that we could not reach a reasonable decision on the issue from the debate today.
I am in this position. I think a prima facie case has been made out for the amalgamation of The Hartlepools. We have heard some denunciation of that principle from my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West, but practically the whole of the case of the hon. Member for Sedgefield was against the addition of part of the Stockton Rural

District Council to West Hartlepool and The Hartlepools. In my opinion, if these two issues were separated, that of the amalgamation of The Hartlepools would stand the greater chance of success.
I am not satisfied, in my own mind, that a full case has been made out for the addition of part of the rural district and that, to my mind, is all the more reason why this Bill should go upstairs to a Select Committee where the point can be settled. If there is any doubt about it at all, it seems to me that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the applicant in that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee, where expert evidence can be heard and sifted by an impartial body and a proper decision reached.
One of the objections raised was the objection to piecemeal reform. It was quite obvious that we could not get a local government Bill through the last Parliament and it seems to me equally obvious that we cannot expect one in this Parliament. Consequently, unless we give Second Readings to Bills of this kind, the whole of our local government structure will be sterilised from now on, and in my view that is an unhealthy position. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will intervene in the debate, because I should like him to make clear what is the Government's view on this issue.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) has left us at the moment. I know his views on this, now that he is the representative of Bishop Auckland and not the Minister of Local Government and Planning; but when he was Minister of Local Government and Planning and I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary he said:
I suggest we take the proposed extensions as they come; judge each of them on its own merits, commit ourselves to no details; but if a prima facie case is shown, let there be a Second Reading."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 1637.]
On that evidence alone, and on the evidence we have that the opposition to this case has not proved its point, I believe we should do the right thing in sending this Bill upstairs where it can be examined properly.
I know that I am in a difficult position in this case because the time may come when I shall have to bring a similar Bill to this House, because my borough is


surrounded by Stockton Rural District; but it would not be to bring in part of the district: it would be merely, when we have a population of 75,000, to try to get county borough status.
It would be regrettable if, on principle, this House should adopt the practice of rejecting all such Bills as this on Second Reading without giving a fair chance for the case to be examined. Because I think we are in some danger of establishing that precedent—if this Bill is rejected wholesale tonight—I want to make a special plea that we should not divide ourselves between those for counties, on the one hand, and those for boroughs on the other, but that we should agree that each Measure should be judged on its merits. The only place where that can he done properly is in a Select Committee. I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading

9.22 p.m.

Mr. William Blyton: I do not intend to speak at any great length on this Bill. I suggest that the House is probably pretty well divided between those who represent boroughs and those who represent county boroughs. This warfare is going to go on for a long time. While I recognise that when this party was in power we did not tackle the question of local government, I would say that, no matter how we may argue these particular cases, the question of local government some day has got to be faced.
The Town Development Bill, which is in its Committee stage, gives to all towns the necessary powers to develop their areas without extending their boundaries. If that Bill is giving such powers to local authorities—to go outside their areas to settle their overspill population without altering their boundaries—surely that can be allowed, and as a means of saving any amount of ratepayers' money; and surely that would be a way of tackling such problems as these until such time as the basic problems of local government are finally settled.
Someone has said tonight that Hartlepool is by the deep blue sea. No doubt, it is. It may not be generally known, but when the monkey came from the deep blue sea it was held as a French spy. But Hartlepool has no case at the

present time for extending itself to meet the circumstances of its population. What West Hartlepool's idea is—and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) had better be careful—is to have a foot outside the boundaries, and, when the industrial development in the docks is extended, to capture that rateable value.
There has been an amicable settlement in the County of Durham of the question of the extension of South Shields. There was an amicable settlement on the question of Sunderland. But Sunderland and South Shields did not ask for half the county. Here is Hartlepool asking for all Hartlepool and the area outside it, and all because they want to protect the area for an airport. The House has decided, and the present Government has not retracted it, that whenever the financial resources of the country allow the big airfield for the North-East will be built 'at West Boldon.
Why should West Hartlepool convey in a statement to every M.P. that they want to develop, and give the idea that Hartlepool will one day be a great airport of value to the people of West Hartlepool? A statement on behalf of the promoters of West Hartlepool Extension Bill says:
For the protection of the Corporation Municipal Aerodrome, and to provide for the needs of industrial development.
I know something about Greatham aerodrome. I was for some years in the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and I know that there is absolutely no hope of Greatham becoming an international airport for the North-East. [An HON. MEMBER: "Dead as a doornail."] This statement is put forward to try and beguile some M.P.s.

Mr. D. Jones: Why does my hon. Friend deliberately seek to mislead the House? No one is claiming for Greatham an international status. All we say is that there is an airport there now which covers 218 acres

Mr. Blyton: There are 218 acres and they get one aeroplane a day. It is used by a flying club. That is the extent of the Greatham airport, which is purely a private airport from end to end. Can my hon. Friend deny that?
There has not been one word of reason in the whole case South Shields' case was settled outside, and so was that of


Sunderland. West Hartlepool wants to take the lot. We have had much encroachment by this borough. I was a Durham councillor for 10 years, and I know that the county is becoming worried about what is to happen to the rateable value of the county. If the town areas keep on encroaching, we can see the day in Durham county when we shall have green fields and all the roads to maintain, and no rateable value.
I therefore ask this House not to give the Bill a Second Reading. Let West Hartlepool go back and come again with a Bill that is reasonable and can be discussed, and there can be an amicable settlement without these fights in the House of Commons. The Bill that we are now asked for is absolutely unreasonable. If they come with a reasonable Bill there will be an amicable settlement.

9.29 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): Perhaps I might venture to intervene at this stage in the internecine warfare which is going on upon the benches opposite. It is another manifestation of the split that we read about. It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate the view of the Government.
This is a Private Bill for which the Government have no responsibility for bringing it before the House. The policy of this Government is very similar to the policy of the previous Government in this respect, and it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd). As stated in the note attached to the West Hartlepool Extension Bill, this policy was laid down by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who with great lucidity and clarity said in March, 1951:
I suggest we take the proposed extensions as they come; judge each of them on its own merits, commit ourselves to no detail; but if a prima facie case is shown, let there be a Second Reading."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 1637.]
That was the broad policy of the previous Government, and my right hon. Friend considers it desirable that this Bill should be brought before a Select Committee in the normal way. Its merits and demerits can then be fully investigated and, indeed, they will be closely examined there. There will be an opportunity for cross-examination, and all the powerful

detailed arguments we have heard tonight can be brought forward in that calm atmosphere upstairs and fully ventilated. There are no grounds of policy upon which the Bill should not pass its Second Reading. There may be grounds of detail, and if so they will be disclosed upstairs.
The House will excuse me if I do not go into the merits of some of the points which have been brought forward tonight. The question of local government cuts right across party boundaries. It transcends all parties. Indeed, since I have been a short time in my present office I have come to realise that the loyalty of a member to the area he represents is deep-rooted and takes a great deal of shifting. So far I have not been able to move any one in the slightest respect where the interests of their own constituency are concerned.
We have had some vigorous speeches. I have enjoyed the lively contribution of my hon. Friend, if I may so describe him, the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Murray), who said that silence is golden. I was reminded of four lines of poetry which were current during the election campaign of 1906, when one of the issues was free trade or protection. The lines ran like this:
My interests must not be neglected.
What I produce must be protected.
With that exception we all agree
That everything should be duty free.
The attitude of that business man was rather like the attitude of hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the House on the question of local government reform. I think I have indicated that the attitude of the Government is that it is desirable that the Bill should go upstairs and be examined by a Select Committee in the normal way and subjected to its scrutiny.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: At the beginning of the debate I felt it was a pity that the House had to discuss these matters tonight, but since I have been sitting here I have realised that we should have been deprived of the delightful speeches of some of my hon. Friends who all too infrequently join in our deliberations. On that account alone the debate has been worth while.
I think the House is in a great difficulty over these matters of detailed extension Bills. They are not matters


with which the ordinary member is familiar, either geographically or in respect of any of the other arguments deployed. In all these cases there is a strong prima facie case that they should be sent to a Select Committee where the arguments and the facts and figures can be thoroughly examined.
I sympathise with the hon. Member who spoke first in support of the Second Reading of this Bill, because I had to do the same thing last year for Sheffield. Not only do I hope that this Bill will get its Second Reading tonight, but I hope that it will fare better than the Sheffield Extension Bill did in the last Session. [Laughter.] This is a serious point. That Bill, after more than three weeks of deliberation by the Select Committee, passed through all its stages in this House and was rejected unceremoniously in another place.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to ask his right hon. Friend if he will consider whether a more satisfactory procedure for the consideration of extension Bills cannot be devised. When a matter of this kind has passed the scrutiny of the House of Commons, representing the people, it is rather unfortunate that it can be thrown out by a body representative of no one. I think that with the time and expense which is involved in these extension and similar local government Bills, while there may be good reason at the moment for not having a comprehensive local government reform, some better and cheaper device for considering these problems should be presented to the House for consideration.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government, in introducing the Town Development Bill, rebuked me for suggesting that it was not possible in local government affairs to get everything done by sweet reasonableness and by agreement between the authorities concerned. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman was not in the House tonight, because the bellicose pacifism in local government affairs of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Murray), and revealed also by other speeches, would have indicated to him the very great difficulty in these matters of getting agreement between a county borough and the surrounding rural district and county council authorities.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to convey these thoughts to the Minister. Can we not have before the next session of Parliament some alternative method for considering these Bills, to have these debates on the Floor of the House and without the possibility of the House of Lords interfering with decisions taken by this House?

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: As the representative of a county constituency in South Wales which nevertheless contains a very large borough, I will not detain the House for more than a few short minutes. I may be said to have a foot in both camps. I believe that the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) summed up the problem which is before us, in that while it is true that the objectors may have a very strong case indeed, what the House has to decide solely is whether a prima facie case has been made that the Bill should go before a Committee.
If the Bill goes upstairs before a Select Committee, the proposers and objectors will have ample opportunity of presenting their respective cases for extra and skilled consideration. That is the only question to which the House should address itself.
In all justice, I believe that such a prima facie case has been made out and that the Bill should go upstairs before a Select Committee. We should not establish a precedent of blocking these Bills at this stage, otherwise the existing Private Bill procedure would be sadly damaged.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. H. Boardman: I think I ought to confess at once to abysmal ignorance both of The Hartlepools and Durham County. I do not think I have ever been near either of these places, and I do not think I have missed a lot—

Mr. Frederick Willey: My hon. Friend should go there.

Mr. Boardman: I have been both entertained and provoked, and, if I may say so with due respect to all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate so far, apart from one or two of the latest speeches, it has been a monument to the futility of this type of procedure for this type of Bill. I really think it has been a waste of time. We have had entertaining speeches and admirable


speeches, whole catalogues of facts and figures, but so far as I can see the cases which have been made were neither based on party nor principle, but simply either on pride or prejudice, and I do not think this is the sort of atmosphere in which we should judge cases of this description.
Some hon. Members will remember how during the war when the then Prime Minister was proposing the setting up of a Select Committee to go into the question of the rebuilding of this House after it had been blitzed, there was some criticism. I think, incidentally, that it came from my predecessor who said that it would probably be better to build houses for people to live in than a House to debate in. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was that he regarded the rebuilding of a new House of Commons as important as a battleship because this is the home of democracy.
I think most of us would echo those sentiments, but what is this "home of democracy" doing when we are sitting here for a couple of hours trying to gag a local authority which wants to state its case? There is no case at all for this sort of procedure. I hope we shall give the Bill a Second Reading and let the Bill be dealt with on its merits, not on pride and prejudice, but judicially.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: Naturally, I have very great sympathy with the arguments put forward by the hon. Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater) and for Durham, North-West (Mr. Murray). I cannot imitate the eloquence of the hon. Member for Durham, NorthWest—we all enjoyed his speech—but, at the same time, I would plead with him and with his friends to allow this Bill to go upstairs.
The case against the proposals in the Bill which affect the rural district council is really very bad, in my opinion. There is no doubt that we are making any future re-organisation of local government more difficult if we create a number of rural districts the councils of which are not capable of carrying out their statutory duties with the efficiency they ought to employ.
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), in a very clear and excellent speech, dealt with a large part of his case most effectively, but I am bound

to say that when he came to the rural district council he did not deal with the case quite as fully and candidly as I had hoped he would.
The hon. Member was kind enough to give way to me and I pointed out that that council were losing £6,000 a year of revenue. I anticipated that in pleading for the Bill the hon. Member would have said, "We shall provide financial compensation," and so on, but there is not a word of that. The county borough is to be strengthened; but what about the local authority that is to be weakened?
In contradistinction to one or two hon. Members who have spoken, I think it is right that we should have serious Second Reading debates on these Bills before we send them upstairs. It is not a question of blocking a Bill but discussing and debating principles which cannot be done so well upstairs, where details can be examined.

Mr. Mulley: The point I tried to make is that there is only one debate. I agree that there are matters of principle, but there is only one debate and we get six or eight views of this sort over the same ground on the point of principle to which the hon. Member is now drawing attention.

Mr. Colegate: I agree with the hon. Member to a certain extent, but it should be remembered that while I agree that any local authority should be free to bring a Bill before the House, there are certain Bills—I think the Luton case is one in point—where we might be right in rejecting a Bill It may well have been that this is also a case for rejection, but on the whole, having heard most of the debate except for a few minutes, I think that the rural district council is being offered an extremely raw deal.
Nonetheless, I believe that upstairs, in Committee, that can be put right. I have had a great deal of experience in defending rural district councils and in some cases the parties come forward at some stage of the proceedings, usually upstairs, and we go outside in the corridor and very often reasonable arrangements are made.
I hope that The Hartlepools will realise, after the speeches of the hon. Members for Sedgefield and Durham, North-West, that there is a very real case for them to meet if we allow this Bill


to go to a Committee. Therefore, although I feel very strongly about the weakening of the position of the rural district council, I consider this a case where there are other objects in the Bill and we might let it go to a Committee. I am certain that The Hartlepools will come forward at some stage with a reasonable offer in order to deal with a situation which affects the rural district council so adversely.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. R. Ewart: I was disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary could not say tonight that his Ministry, or the Government, were preparing to bring in a Bill which would have the effect of stopping the type of debate we have had this evening. I am now referring to the vexed question of local government reform, and that in the absence of such reform, hon. Members of this House should have to argue, within a very narrow confine, the merits and demerits of Private Bills about which they must have a very limited knowledge.
I hope that the advice of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) will be taken on this occasion and that this Bill will be sent to a Committee and subjected to very close scrutiny before coming back to us for Report and Third Reading. Many arguments have been used in favour and against the West Hartlepool extension scheme, and I believe that there is merit on both sides. My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) made a fine speech, as did the hon. Members representing the Durham constituencies. They pointed out that in the past Durham County had been extremely generous to Sunderland and South Shields in their extension claims and had come to an agreement.
That is true, but I know for certain that Sunderland will be coming back within the next few years asking for more, because that compromise arrangement only gave Sunderland County Borough five years of breathing space and only permitted them to get on with their essential re-housing plans. I could find no justification for the argument that because West Hartlepool have control of the Greatham Airport, which is let out to a charter company, that is a strong reason for extension.
I wish to refer to one statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools who said, in answer to a question, that unless there was an overspill population there was no argument for county borough extension. That is not a very firm argument. A strong point made by the hon. Member was that under the Lock plan West Hartlepool would have to find one square mile of territory to permit the re-housing of people living within the county borough under substandard conditions.
Surely it is a weighty argument that there are people living in the county borough in sub-standard housing conditions, that the county borough is charged with the responsibility of re-housing them and requires one square mile of territory to permit their policy to be brought into practical effect. If there is one single consideration why we should give this Bill a Second Reading and a closer examination upstairs, it would be the very fact of the dire housing problem which is confronting the West Hartlepool county borough, and its necessity at the present time either to overspill or extend its boundaries to allow it to provide a solution to its housing problem.
For that reason alone, I should be prepared to support my hon. Friends, if necessary in the Division Lobby, in support of this Bill.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: I very much hope that the House will accept the advice which has been tendered to it from the other side of the Chamber and send this Bill to a Select Commitee upstairs, if only because of the wide diversity of argument that has been offered tonight, mainly from the other side of the House.
It seems to me to make an irrefutable case for a Measure of this kind, which contains a lot of disputatious detail which arouses passions according to the geographical location of votes. I can imagine no less acid test, for, as one hon. Member has said, that is the source from which he has drawn his inspiration.

Mr. Boardman: I thought I had tried to develop a certain sense of neutrality.

Mr. Thompson: I admire very much the hon. Member's efforts, and I unreservedly withdraw my comments in respect of him.
After a debate like this, this Chamber is not qualified to decide on the merits or demerits either of this extension Bill or any other, and, therefore, having given a broad recognition to the very wide differences that can be raised by a seemingly well-intentioned Measure, the House should commit that Measure to a Committee upstairs.
I hope that neither the House nor the Minister will imagine that the Minister sheds all responsibility in this matter by recommending that the Bill should go to a Select Committee. That Select Committee does not pretend to be a microcosm of this House. It is not necessarily an elected body, and it does not act as such. In the case of the Liverpool Extension Bill, it was sent to a Committee of the House of Lords. Perhaps it is not very fitting for me to comment on what was done by that Committee; I think it made a very bad mistake. It sat in a judicial capacity without very much guidance from the Ministry as to the broad intentions of the Ministry regarding the future status and organisation of local government.
It seems to me that the time is very opportune when the Government ought to make as clear as it possibly can the kind of local government organisation which it seeks to have for the future, and I hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will draw a lesson from the kind of debate which we have had on this Bill, and take the earliest possible steps to announce the wishes and intentions of the Government with regard to the future status of local Government.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I rise only to appeal to my colleagues to allow this Bill to have a Second Reading, and to follow the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary. As I gather, the case of the county Members is that in the previous examples of South Shields and Sunderland a compromise was reached before this stage, but in this case a compromise has not been reached. I do not think that is a weighty enough factor to drive the House to the conclusion that this Bill ought not to be given a Second Reading. The fact that a compromise has not been reached ought not to stop the Bill going to a Select Committee.
The difference between the West Hartlepools Corporation and the sur-

rounding local authorities in the county is one which could very properly be decided after the arguments are put before a Select Committee, and I therefore appeal to the county Members to allow this Bill to have a Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) gave credit to us in Sunderland for having been so reasonable. In Sunderland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Ewart) has said, we got far less than we required, but we struck a compromise. I think that we can rely upon the Select Committee, having heard the arguments on all sides, to reach a sensible decision, and I again appeal to my hon. Friends to allow this Bill to go to a Select Committee to have the matter settled.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: I wish to make three short points in extension of the very excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman), and I hope that in doing so I shall not fall into the error of trying to do in this Chamber what ought to be done in a Committee upstairs.
The real reason for his criticism of procedure is because that is what we so often, as now, tend to do—to go into detail instead of into the general principles. The hon. Member for Leigh rightly emphasised that the issue of principle was a question of whether there was a prima facie case to go upstairs. On that, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. K. Thompson), that the fact that there has been so much discussion of detail here is, in itself, a most compelling cause for saying that it should go upstairs.
Furthermore, it seems to me that one of the important factors of alleged principle is whether or not the Durham County Council can claim that The Hartlepools have been unreasonable, or whether they ought to have been, like some other elements of Durham County, sweetly reasonable. I would say that this House is, and must be, the judge of whether people are being sweetly reasonable or not; the Durham County cannot itself be the sole judge of that. Therefore, it must go upstairs for that point to be judged.
The final point I wish to make is that in all these matters there must be the visual as well as the oral; matters of this kind cannot be discussed without a map


and all the papers that are required. For that reason, too, I think that this Bill should go upstairs.

Mr. D. Jones: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Division No. 44.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Alport, C. J. M.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Robson-Brown, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Baird, J.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Russell, R. S.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Hopkinson, Henry
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Black, C. W.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Blackburn, F.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Scott, R. Donald


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Shepherd, William


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Braine, B. R.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Janner, B.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Burke, W. A.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Butcher, H. W.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Sparks, J. A.


Cary, Sir Robert
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Speir, R. M.


Channon, H.
Kaberry, D.
Steele, T.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
King, Dr. H. M.
Stevens, G. P.


Colegate, W. A.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Collick, P. H.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Storey, S.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lindsay, Martin
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)
Studholme, H. G.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
MacLeod, lain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Davidson, Viscountess
Marples, A. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Erroll, F. J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Vosper, D. F.


Ewart, R.
Morley, R.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Fienburgh, W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wallace, H. W.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Foot, M. M.
Moyle, A.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Gower, H. R.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Oakshott, H. D.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Pannell, Charles
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Parker, J.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Partridge, E.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hannan, W.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wills, G.


Hardy, E. A.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hargreaves, A.
Raikes, H. V.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Redmayne, M.
Yates, V. F.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Rhodes, H.



Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Heath, Edward
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Mr. Mulley and Mr. Chetwynd.




NOES


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Baldwin, A. E.
Grey, C. F.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Bing, G. H. C.
Grimond, J.
Oswald, T.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Peart, T. F.


Bullard, D. G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pryde, D. J.


Crouch, R. F.
Holman, P.
Ross, William


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Slater, J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
MacColl, J. E.
Wellwood, W.


Fernyhough, E.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean



Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gage, C. H.
Messer, F.
Mr. Blyton and Mr. Murray

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and Committed.

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 39.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "fifty," and to insert "thirty."—[Mr. Bottomley.]

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Bing: By a curious coincidence it happens that on both occasions that this Bill has been interrupted I have found myself addressing the Committee at the time of the interruption. I do not want to detain the Committee for any length of time, but I want to complete the few remarks I was addressing to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade when we were interrupted.
I am glad that the Patronage Secretary suspended the Rule today and that my hon. Friends were agreeable to that course so that at least we should have a reasonable amount of time to discuss the country's export trade. It was very important and desirable that that course should have been taken. I was on the question of what these special guarantees were required for, and I was suggesting that I would use such influence as I possessed on my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. Bottomley) to withdraw the Amendment if we received certain undertakings from the Secretary for Overseas Trade.
I was on the point of asking for what purpose he intends to use this extra cover. Does he intend it to be used for covering, not only in the North American continent but all over the world, the type of activities that are now covered by a special cover in the North American continent? He and the Secretary for Overseas Trade have told us that the special covers are used, for example, for insuring a man who goes out and works on a project, for insuring the supply of goods and the supply of spares; but so far as one can see, those things are mainly restricted to the Western Hemisphere.
The question that some of my hon. Friends would like answered is this: In view of all that has happened, in view of the Australian position that we have discussed earlier and in view of all these questions, is it not now time that we

should look again at the whole pattern of British trade? Is this not a time when special guarantees will be required to assist exporters to open up in new fields, and when the right hon. Gentleman should give the Committee some idea of what those new fields are?
I was suggesting to the Committee, and I will suggest again, very shortly, that perhaps there is no better field than that of trade in the Far East and trade behind what is generally called the Iron Curtain, or East-West trade. Those are types of trade which, if the other types of trade fail us, ought to be developed. Does not the President of the Board of Trade think that the time has come to make a new endeavour along these lines?
I mentioned in the Second Reading speech—which, owing to technicalities, I cannot go into now—that it was desirable that we should reconsider our attitude towards the conference in Moscow; but I do not want to labour that point unduly. What I would suggest is that the right hon. Gentleman should give us some indication that we are now going to make a determined effort not only in the markets in which, up to now, we have been making efforts—the dollar markets—but in markets everywhere, and that we are going to approach this problem with a new idea of flexibility.
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the question I asked him: What are the special credits for as compared with the ordinary ones? He has told us of Cuban buses, herrings in Poland and one or two other things. Can we have a little more detail than that?

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: If I might reply shortly to the points which have been made by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), as well as the points raised by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley). The right hon. Gentleman repeated a request that he had made previously, namely, whether I could give him some details about the success of this scheme in the dollar area. I shall be very happy to do that. It has been a very successful venture.
The guarantees given to date total some 367 covering more than 500 exporters. There has been an increased dollar turnover equivalent to some £5¼ million. Payments in respect of losses to date have been approximately £4,000;


earned premium income amounts to about £250,000, and the current liabilities on 31st December were £9,300,000. I think we can say—and we can all share the credit; there is no party issue involved—that the hopes which my predecessor the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) had of this scheme have been fulfilled.
The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch asked me—and it is a perfectly proper request—to justify the demand for the extra £50 million of cover for which I am asking in this Bill. He will understand that it is not our practice to divulge details of individual contracts, because obviously that would lead to considerable confusion and a good deal of criticism by other people who might think that they ought to have precisely the same treatment and so forth. But I can say that we have run up to well over £70 million, and at one time we were discussing business which would have taken us to something like £85 million or £90 million, which is coming very close to the limit which we have at the present time. We would, in fact, have got to a stage where, to cover any large scale commodity contracts, we might well have gone right over the £100 million limit.
10.15 p.m.
The range of guarantees of this character, as I said earlier, cover very wide extremes. I think they cover the extremes which would appeal to hon. Members in all quarters. There is the North American market, which I need not elaborate again because I have dealt with it already. It has been generally agreed on all sides that we should do what we can to encourage traders to break into that difficult market. Equally, we cover today no less than 51 per cent. of the trade with Russia—which is a very high figure, indeed—and 21 per cent. of the trade with other Iron Curtain countries; so there is no discrimination here.
But I seek to extend these facilities as widely as possible, to cover exporters in whatever quarter of the world they may happen to be carrying on their trade. I hope this will satisfy the Committee that our request for this extension of another £50 million is necessary and will be helpful in the circumstances.

Mr. Bottomley: In view of the Minister's explanation I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(BRITISH BANK GUARANTEES.)

For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that the guarantees which may be given by the Board of Trade under sections one and two of the Export Guarantees Act, 1949, include guarantees (in this Act called "British bank guarantees") of advances made by a bank carrying on business in the United Kingdom to manufacturers, convertors merchants and others concerned with the manufacture, treatment or distribution of goods in order to promote or facilitate the manufacture of goods for export or the export of goods.—[Mr. Mitchison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I think it would be convenient to deal at the same time with the second new Clause in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends—
(1) Whenever the aggregate amount of the liability of the Board of Trade in respect of guarantees given under section one of the Export Guarantees Act, 1949, shall exceed five hundred million pounds the amount of British bank guarantees given under that section shall be not less than the amount of such excess.
(2) Whenever the aggregate amount of the liability of the Board of Trade in respect of guarantees given under section two of the Export Guarantees Act, 1949, shall exceed one hundred million pounds the amount of British bank guarantees shall be not less than the amount of such excess.
We could also deal with the consequential Amendment to the Title which appears on the Order Paper.
The object of the first of these Clauses is merely to introduce to the President of the Board of Trade a type of operation which is, I think, obviously within the terms of the 1949 Act and therefore within the purposes of the additional credits which we propose to grant today. That, in fact, is the case, although it has not always been acted upon in the past. So we shall introduce the President of the Board of Trade to a type of operation which we believe to be fully within his powers and which we desire to commend to his attention.
By way of commendation, the second new Clause goes on to make a direction as to the way in which the additional credit—if I may use the term—that is


now being given to the President can be employed for this particular purpose.
These export guarantees were originally for a much narrower purpose than they now are. When the 1949 Act was introduced on 2nd February, 1949, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), who was then President of the Board of Trade, said specifically that
To help with the export drive generally, the Department could also give guarantees in connection with the financing of overseas sales agencies or the holding of stocks either abroad or in the United Kingdom in anticipation of sales to desirable countries. I shall in no sense try to disguise from the House the fact that the powers given are pretty wide and give considerable elasticity in operation to the Department, but I know the confidence of both sides of the House in this Department is such that they will be ready to give this elasticity and freedom to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1949; Vol. 1460, c. 1683.]
The figures we have heard from his successor in office amply justify that confidence, and the question now is whether the operations of this very successful body under the Act can be extended rather more widely than they have been in practice in the past. There is not the least doubt that the terms of the Act are wide enough to cover anything which is proposed by the Clause.
A remarkable thing about the Act and about the purpose for which we give the credit today is that it is not really an Act to set up an insurance arrangement at all. It is an Act to provide for guarantees. As the Committee are well aware, guarantees are far wider, both in the ordinary sense of the term and in their technical use, than insurance can be, and one of the most obvious guarantees known to us all is where some mechant's or trader's overdraft at a bank is guaranteed. That is not insurance, but it is, of course, a guarantee in the most ordinary sense of the word. Curiously enough, there is not a word that I can see about insurance in the Act at all. It is an Act to provide these guarantees.
If they are for the purpose of encouraging trade with places outside the United Kingdom—and, of course, there can be no doubt that that must be their main purpose—then what can the Board of Trade do? According to the Act it may:
…after consultation…with consent…make arrangements for giving guarantees to, or for the benefit of, persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom, being guarantees in connection with the export,

manufacture, treatment or distribution of goods, the rendering of services, or any other matter which appears to the Board of Trade conducive to the said purpose.
How comparatively narrow appears to have been the practice of the Department in this matter! I have read the reports of the debates and I have listened to what has been said today, and, as far as I can see, the guarantees have not extended at all to manufacture. By and large, they have not been guarantees as to payments in this country by a manufacturer, for example, financing himself in order to go into the export trade; and yet that is well within the terms of the Act. They have not been guarantees for the specific purpose to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton referred in introducing the original Bill—the financing of stocks in this country before any sales were made; is to say, in order to promote and facilitate sales to foreign countries, of course, and in the interests of the export trade.
There is a particular reason for making it perfectly clear at the moment that this can be done—and that is the purpose of the first Clause. Having regard to the economic situation of the country, and for reasons of policy with which I am not concerned today, general bank credit is being restricted and is being made considerably more expensive. I am, sure it is the intention of the Committee and of every person in it, as well as of the Government, that that restriction, should not operate to limit the export trade when its express purpose is to expand it. Accordingly, we look to this additional credit to see whether anything can be done with it in order to promote that purpose.
I do not want in any way to limit the matter, but it is perfectly clear that a man who is, say, in the textile trade, or the boot and shoe trade, which happens to be very active in my own constituency, or in many other trades—I am giving instances of the consumer goods trades, but, no doubt, they could be applied to other trades, too—and who is contemplating entry into the export trade, at the moment may be capable of performing a most valuable service to the country, and of doing exactly what the President would have him do, and yet be restricted because he cannot get the necessary bank credit.
It may be asked why such a person cannot get the necessary bank credit. I call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the whole object of the Bill is to enable public funds to be used for purposes which private funds would not, in fact, fully meet. Whether we regard them as matters of insurance or, more correctly, as matters of guarantee, there are certainly cases in which a private bank is not prepared to do what it is the intention of this Committee should be done out of public funds.
I am not for a moment inviting those who administer the Acts to go hazardously into giving guarantees, but their record in this matter—their record of business and their record of administration—shows that they have so far succeeded in making what I may be allowed to call a roaring success of something that private enterprise in these particular circumstances could not do. Now, I say, let us see to it that they spread this public enterprise a little further and carry to this particular field, which they do not seem to have exploited so far, the type of success which they have shown in the more limited fields they actually have covered.
It will be said again that there are practical difficulties. I have been thinking about what the practical difficulties may be said to be, and I suppose they could be considered, on the one hand, from the point of view of a bank making an advance, and, on the other hand, from the point of view of giving a guarantee. I see no difficulty whatever from the bank's point of view if it gets a secure guarantee from these funds—and, after all, that is the purpose of it. If they get that, it needs no further security whatever. After all the Consolidated Fund should be good enough for the purpose.
If that is so, it leaves it open to the Department to secure itself, and to secure itself as fully as any bank would do, and in the way in which an advancing bank would secure itself; and, therefore, when an overdraft, or an advance of this sort, is guaranteed, I can see no difficulty whatever in the Department's taking security on the goods, and taking security in another, more intangible, way, which, I am sure, the President will be the first to recognise—that is, by its own inquiries into the standing and substance of the

importer, merchant converter, or whoever may be concerned.
After all, the Department has done this, and done it very successfully, with goods abroad and with people abroad. How much simpler and how much easier to do it with goods and people here in this country; and going abroad, the goods go in the hands, and, as it were, under the clutch of the Department itself. How much easier to make inquiries, and to secure oneself, with regard to a man who is a manufacturer of textiles in Yorkshire or of boots and shoes in Northamptonshire, than it can be ever to discover the particular circumstances and particular credit at any given moment of an importer in North or South America, or wherever it may be.
The very fact of the success of the Department in the exceptional and special cases dealt with under the second line of credits—I think they are called the special credits—and the facts we heard just now, justify one, I think, in the belief, that, if it can do that, it could certainly do this. After all, the main object of this extension of credit is to promote the export trade. We have succeeded in rather difficult special fields, and all we ask now is that an obvious field should be fully exploited, a field in which public funds could do more than could be done elsewhere in the country's present circumstances and having regard to the credit policy of the Government and the credit restrictions of the moment.
10.30 p.m.
The purpose of the Clause is, first, to remove doubt, if there can be doubt, and to define what are called British bank guarantees—that is, the type of guarantee given in favour of someone concerned in the export trade to a bank carrying on business in the United Kingdom and making some advance to that person. Having so defined and clarified the nature of British bank guarantees, it says that when you come on to the full tranche that we are proposing to allow by this Act, the amount of the British bank guarantee shall be at least equal to the excess over the original limit.
Let me give some figures as an illustration. The first original limit was £500 million, and up to that figure the Department remains as free as ever it was. Once it comes into the new credit that we are proposing to give it, then it


will depend upon what it has done in the past how far and for how long it still maintains that freedom. If, in spite of what we are saying today, it has obstinately refused to give any form of these credits in the past, then when it comes to the new money it will have to start giving them and keep on giving them. But if, as we hope and expect, it has had regard to what we are saying today and has given at least some reasonable measure—say, £200 million—of this particular guarantee, then it will have £200 million of the new money free and will only be tied as to the last £50 million.
It is a nice exercise in arithmetic, and Members of the Committee are as capable of doing it as I It seems to me that this is a real field of importance, particularly at the moment, and if what we are proposing today is met in the spirit in which we propose it, then we shall do no more than give effect to the intentions of the original Act, and to the very words with which the President of the Board of Trade introduced it. We shall be doing it, in the circumstances of the moment, in such a way as to carry out the real intention of this Committee and the House—that is to say, to promote the export trade and to enable the manufacturers, converters, dealers, and others, from whom the whole of the export trade must originally spring, to develop their business in what are at the moment the best interests of the country.

Mr. H. Rhodes: I beg to second the Motion. In rising to do so, may I say in support of this Clause that it has been put down with sincerity and a real desire to offer constructive methods of increasing our exports.
During the day a significant thing has emerged from the general discussion on exports. It is that we in this country will have to look forward to a new pattern of exports in the future. There has been considerable talk about the pattern which may come. Capital goods have been mentioned as supplanting the former consumer goods that we have exported. But in my opinion that is long-term and, in the meantime, we shall have to do all we can to increase, or at least to maintain, the consumer goods exports that we have been sending abroad during the last few years.
The consumer goods industries in this country are in a difficult situation at the moment. I am not prepared now to discuss the reasons we will leave that for another time. Suffice it to say that they are in this position, that with credit restriction they have to dispose of stocks, which means that there is quite a bit of distress selling. And the banks are also in a difficult position because, working under the guidance of Her Majesty's Government, they have to be very careful in the way they allocate their credit.
It is a fact that many firms, in the textile industry in particular, are hard-pressed at the present time to finance their businesses. They cannot at the moment raise the capital to finance export orders that they have had offered to them. The point here is quite simple: can we afford to miss export orders at the present time or are we going to obey the injunctions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Are we going to take notice of what he said last Monday, that the whole basis of the Budget calculations is the maintenance of exports and increased production?
So we have to consider this matter in a new light. It may be, for instance, that a bank holds securities quite adequate for the risk that it takes when it loans money to a borrower and it may be that the borrower cannot provide any more security. What are we going to do? Are we going to allow the bank to deny credit to a perfectly good exporter? I do not think we should. I think that if the Clauses we have put on the Paper were adopted, they would do what I am sure the President of the Board of Trade desires, help the exporter who has reached the limit of his borrowing powers with his bank.
It may be said that is impossible for a producer to divorce the home trade and his general business from a particular export project. That will have to be worked out. My opinion is that it could be separated. I ask the President of the Board of Trade, when he replies, to say something on that aspect of the problem.
We are asking, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out, that there should be a departure from the practice of insurance only, to guaranteeing bank advances. There is nothing new in this. It was


envisaged in the Overseas Trade (Credits and Insurance) Act, 1920. It seems a long cry from the time in 1920, when circumstances were very similar to what they are now, when £26 million only was asked for, to the present when we are asking for the colossal sum which appears in the Bill.
It is true that there may be objections, and it may be argued that the proposals we are making would be regarded as too much of a speculation and that the guarantees might be misused. That is the risk. But we must take a lot of risks during the next 12 months, because any consumer goods exports that we lose this year may be lost for ever. It is up to everybody who is concerned for the interests of the consumer goods trades to apply his mind to the problem now, because in 12 months' time it may be too late. No opportunity should be neglected of supporting exports which come from consumer goods industries.
It was once possible for a group of nations to be able to sweep the world with their consumer goods products. This happened twice, once when we wrested the textile trades from the East by means of the Western machinery; and second, by the East when they wrested a large amount of the textile trade from the West by using Western machines and Eastern cheap labour.
It may be that a large-scale unbalance of that sort has been seen for the last time, and that in the consumer goods field there will have to be worked out a system of world allocation and of working in a better way and with a better plan for the distribution of consumer goods throughout the free world. But that is another problem; we are not applying ourselves to that now. We are thinking in terms of how we can benefit and help our own consumer goods industries.
Since so much depends upon what action is taken this year, surely it is not beyond the powers of the Board of Trade and of the Government so to interpret the desires that we express in the two Clauses which we wish to see written into the Bill, that our consumer goods trades can look forward to the benefit that will accrue.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have listened with interest, and some sympathy, to the terms in which these new Clauses have been presented. I would say to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that, although I ask him not to press the Clauses to a Division, I can meet him in the spirit in which they were proposed.
One should not over-estimate what the Export Credits Guarantee Department can do. For example, it cannot step in to provide an alternative banking system, but what it can do, in certain circumstances, is what these Clauses lay down. The power already exists, and that is the real answer, and as the hon. and learned Member says—

Mr. Bottomley: If I may interrupt, may I point out that it is not suggested that it does the duties of the banks; but the banker has to supply given standards. He cannot give better standards and terms to one trader than to another; but, if one trader says he has a valuable export market and, thus, he wants extra credit, the Export Credits Guarantee Department can step in and help.

Mr. Thorneycroft: This is not the time to discuss banking systems, but bankers I have known have discriminated, with prudence, between different traders; and without going into that aspect of the matter, there is power under the existing law for the extension of guarantees to lines of credit of this character. So, the trouble is not in the law. The trouble is in the application of the law, and I think that I carry both the hon. and learned Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) with me when I say that the whole subject bristles with difficulties.
To start with, very often the trader would only come to the Export Credits Guarantee Department when his credit was virtually exhausted with the bank, and that would be a difficult moment to ask for a guarantee; and if we sought to extend the guarantee, the bank would have certain views as to how it should be extended. I do not want to exaggerate these points, but there are considerable practical problems.
Having said that, let me add that we do, and have done, many of the things


which the hon. and learned Member suggests. For instance, in the joint venture guarantees, we cover those exporters, and manufacturers, from the time the production programme is laid down, through the purchase of the raw materials, through the production processes, and the time when the goods are sold abroad; and we have, in some cases, provided cover against merchandising and advertising expenses.
These things may sound all right in general terms, but without quoting the name of the firm, here is a practical example of what was done in the case of one firm. It was a wool firm, and we carried or guaranteed to carry the wool stock to be made into goods for the United States market. The Department gave cover for over four years to the firm, the liability for goods in course of manufacture was £187,000, and the turnover achieved by that firm was £900,000 more than in the year previous to the guarantee being given. That is why I would emphasise that there are many examples of really substantial achievements along the lines indicated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. In these circumstances, I think I can say that the law as it stands is satisfactory, and that we are, in fact, doing many of the things we have been urged to do.
I would only say a further word about the second Clause. I hope the hon. Gentlemen will not press it and tie up one-third of the cover which we are allowed to give in the very special form of guarantee which they desire. It may be, and, in many respects, undoubtedly is, an admirable form of guarantee, but I think the Export Credits Guarantee Department, with the experience they have had and the knowledge displayed, should not be tied down to a particular parcelling out of the various guarantees which they, in fact, extend.
I hope I have done something to meet the arguments put forward, and perhaps, in these circumstances, the hon. Gentlemen will see their way not to press the Clauses to a Division.

Mr. Mitchison: While I much appreciate the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, as well as what he had to say, and we are very glad, on this occasion at any rate, to discover that he has actually been concealing his own good deeds in the past, I ask him if he can

let us know on some convenient occasion, whether in answer to a Question or otherwise, not about any particular case, but what sort of amount of advance or bank guarantee, or whatever it is called, is intended, and if he can arrange for that figure to be given from time to time in the returns or accounts of the Department.
If he will allow me one other comment, I appreciate, as I am sure we all do, that we may very well get the case of a man who is not in a position to get further credit facilities from the bank, but who provides exactly the kind of case which, under proper safeguards, we ought to cover, and the case which it was the whole object and intention of the Act to cover. The best tribute that we can pay to the practical working of the Department is that they have met, in other fields, and met successfully, far more difficult problems than the problem of how to make advances to a trader who might not get them otherwise. Perhaps we may have an answer in due course to those questions.

Mr. Rhodes: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consult with the export groups, the development councils and any organisations interested in this field, so that, perhaps at a later date, he could give us the result of his deliberations?

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, if there are any figures I can produce which would be of assistance to the Committee along the lines which the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested, I will certainly produce them, but I should not like to say offhand how easy it is to do so, because these contracts vary infinitely from one to another. If I can help, I will certainly do so, and place the information at the hon. and learned Gentleman's disposal.
With regard to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), who speaks with great knowledge on these subjects, I would say that any export group that wants at any time to make contact with me in order to secure export credits would be most welcome, and that I will do anything I can to help in discussing methods by which assistance might be given. I should be only too glad to enter into discussions of this kind. Speaking on behalf of the Export Credits


Guarantee Department, it is our desire to extend credits in the directions in which they are desired, and we are only too anxious to find out what the problems are and how we can help.

Mr. Bottomley: While acceding to the President's request not to press these Clauses to a Division, might I suggest that his very reasonable reply might be published in suitable form by the "Board of Trade Journal" whose circulation will ensure it publicity?

Mr. Mitchison: In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILM PRODUCTION (SPECIAL LOANS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the National Film Finance Corporation to borrow otherwise than from the Board of Trade, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums which, under paragraph 8 of the Schedule to the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act, 1949, are payable out of moneys so provided.

Resolution agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILM PRODUCTION (SPECIAL LOANS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER OF NATIONAL FILM FINANCE CORPORATION TO BORROW OTHERWISE THAN FROM BOARD OF TRADE.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have no desire to keep the Committee for more than a brief moment. Although the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for

Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) and myself has not been called, we can, I think, conveniently raise the point we had in mind at this stage.
The point that we and other hon. Members have in mind is that it is desirable to ensure that a Treasury guarantee, both as to interest and principal, can be given when loans are raised under this Bill by the Corporation from other sources than the Board of Trade. The reason, of course, is that money can be borrowed very much cheaper if there is a Treasury guarantee than on the open market.
We had no indication on Second Reading that the Bank rate was about to be raised to 4 per cent. It has now been so raised and that must make it, in our submission, more difficult for the Corporation to raise money at a reasonable rate. As they in turn will have to charge those who borrow from them a higher rate still, it may well be that presently, so far as moneys coming from this £2 million are concerned, borrowers from the Corporation may be asked to pay rates that are crippling to them.
11.0 p.m.
I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that under the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act, 1946, it is possible for the Treasury to give such guarantees and, of course, I do not quarrel with that. All I am doing is to ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman will indicate to us before we pass this Clause that if the situation is such that money has to be borrowed at a much higher rate than we have visualised in the past, the Treasury will be asked to give the necessary guarantees so that those thinking of using the facilities provided by the Bill will not find it is quite impossible to take up loans because of the interest which on a commercial basis and in the nature of things will have to be charged. If we can have that assurance from him it will, I think, satisfy us on this side of the Committee and we shall be willing to allow the Clause to go through without pressing it to a Division.

Mr. T. O'Brien: The President of the Board of Trade was kind enough to receive me and colleagues from the executive council of my union for an interview on this subject on 14th January. Among other


things, we stressed the desirability and necessity of giving further credit or authority to raise a loan to the National Film Finance Corporation. It is only fair for me to say the President received us with sympathy and displayed a great deal of constructive knowledge of such a complex industry as the film industry. He promised very favourable consideration of the factors we put forward and he has carried out that promise.
In a reply to me the other day, he said the Government would provide facilities for raising a further credit of £2 million. It is true that was not the amount for which we asked. The authority given in the Bill is limited as to both amount and guarantee. Unlike its predecessors, this loan of £2 million is not to be backed by Treasury guarantee. Since the proposed Amendment has been ruled out of order, I can only support the plea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) that that aspect of the matter should be considered favourably.
Unfortunately, Ministry of Labour and trade union business prevented my being present at the Second Reading debate, but I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT. One or two points need emphasis. We asked the President of the Board of Trade to use his influence with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant a credit or loan of £10 million to the Corporation, spread over three years. In round figures, that meant £3,500,000 this year and again in 1953 and 1954. Some of my hon. Friends thought I was rather cheeky in asking for such substantial sums.
To anyone who does not know all the facts about film production it might appear to be a tall order to ask for £10 million in these days. But on the contrary if there is any "cheek" at all it is on the part of this Government and the last Government in taking large sums of money out of the industry every year and giving so little in return. As the President of the Board of Trade himself mentioned on Second Reading, there is about £37 million to £40 million coming into the Treasury by way of entertainments tax. My organisation's plea was that less than one-third of the amount the Treasury takes in one year by way of entertainments tax should be ploughed back into film production over three

years, or from another point of view, we ask that the loan should be of £3,500,000 annually for three years, which is less than one-twelfth of the money which comes from the film industry by way of entertainments tax.
With these figures in mind, I think our request, and my constant and continued plea to the Government of the day for further credits, is most reasonable and modest. We know from previous discussions in the House and in Committee what the position is, and we are all agreed on the valuable work done by the Corporation since its inception.
I have from time to time been one of the most constructive critics of the activities of the Corporation in my capacity as a trade union leader in the industry. That criticism has not been directed to its management or particular functions, but rather to the major lines of policy that from time to time the Corporation has been obliged to pursue.
But I have also made it clear, especially after a recent meeting with the directors of the Corporation, that I personally am satisfied—for what it is worth, but, nevertheless, it is of material value—that the Corporation is doing a first-class job of work, and I want to associate myself with the testimony from both sides of the House to the work of the Corporation. Indeed, were it not for the existence of the Corporation and its work over the past years I would hesitate to believe there was any reasonably good future for British films at all.
As a trade union we have suffered considerable unemployment and loss of membership because of insufficient credits for producers. Since 1947 my organisation alone has lost nearly 6,000 employees of all grades, in unemployment. Fortunately, they have not all sat in the corner moping and groaning. No one likes losing a job to which he has been accustomed for years. Most of them have been able to find employment in other occupations, and some are taking part in the re-armament programme. Others, of course, sat down and bemoaned their lot, but we cannot help it. Production has reached rock bottom and we must do our best to improve it.
Today, out of 12 million employed in film production four years ago there are now fewer than 4,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Twelve thousand"] The financial state


of the industry goes into such astronomical figures that one is tempted to believe that the labour supply is in the same category. I should have said 12,000. Today, the figure is less than 4,000, of which over three-quarters of those employed are members of my own organisation. We are in a position to assess the value of the assistance by this and previous Governments to the industry.
I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that the Clause may be backed by Government guarantees on the lines indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley. What is the use of giving this aid, on paper, to an industry which is struggling to work on an economic basis unless there are guarantees? The industry has cut out the extravagance of the past and is trying to do a first-class job. I think all will agree that the good British films made in recent years—and which are still being made—are second to none in the world.
Like other main film producing countries, our main problem is to make sufficient good films. We cannot guarantee that every film will be a winner, but those which have reached the top can stand up to world criticism and, indeed, are the admiration of the world. We want that to continue and we want practical help in seeing that it does continue. That help can be given by backing this loan by Treasury guarantees.
The President of the Board of Trade made it clear on Second Reading that it does not necessarily follow that there will be no Treasury guarantee for loans given under the Clause but, as my right hon. Friend said, it would give more confidence to private banking circles and to others who might be prepared to lend money if they thought the Government continued to have confidence in the British film industry, as it has in the last year or two.
It will be another year or two before the Eady fund is established, and the President should not overlook the fact that there are strong interests in the film industry today who advocate that the Eady levy should come to an end in another two years. Should their advocacy succeed, the British film production industry would be bereft of any practical

kind of revenue to support future production. The Corporation is due to end its activities in 1954, unless measures are taken to continue it in existence. It is, therefore, unwise for the previous guarantees, even under the other Acts, to be withdrawn at this stage, or for there to be any doubt about their existence.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter very carefully and to make it known that guarantees will be given for the £2 million loans under the Clause, and thus to make certain that the whole world realises that the present Conservative Government are as sympathetic and as constructive towards the problem of British films as were the previous Government.
May I express the appreciation of the thousands of members I represent, as a trade union official, for what the Government are trying to do to continue the policy of the previous Government? We are anxious to go on doing a first-class job. British films are dollar earners and dollar savers at one and the same time. We want all the constructive encouragement we can get, for we have a difficult task ahead. There are many divisions in the industry, and we are trying to bring them together so that they can speak with one voice and so that there can be a coherent approach. We wish to do all we can to eliminate those factors which caused criticism in the past and we hope we shall have the support of the Committee in our efforts and that the Committee will support the plea made by my right hon. Friend.
We can be a source of considerable revenue to the Treasury in other directions. The British films that are successful have turned over considerable amounts in entertainments tax, and we feel that we are doing a good job of work, not only with regard to finance in assisting the country, but also as the industry did during the war in maintaining the morale of the people and giving them relaxation during difficult times.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I am sure the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) were good in relation to this guarantee, but I wonder whether they were wise. It is clear that the Corporation can obtain a Treasury guarantee


if it so wants. It may be very much better in many circumstances that it should obtain such additional finance as it requires without a guarantee. If the story goes round that the industry has the Treasury at its beck and call, it will be difficult for those who run the business to get a loan without it.
It is not as simple as the right hon. Gentleman thinks. It is not merely a matter of borrowing at x per cent. and lending at x plus y. It may well be that the Corporation will accumulate funds of its own, and will be able to raise funds without Treasury support. I want to see this Corporation grow from being a Government-sponsored one to being an independent organisation. We should not stress too much the Treasury guarantee of the loan, because it ought to be the aim of the Corporation in the future to operate without it and put itself on a commercial basis.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I am very grateful for the friendly reception this Bill has had, both on Second Reading and today. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien), who invariably intervenes with great experience of the industry, was unable, for the reasons he stated, to be present on Second Reading, which, naturally, made him more eager to give his views tonight.
It is important that we should not exaggerate the slight difference there is between the two sides of the Committee on the one point that has been raised. I suggest to hon. Members opposite—as was suggested by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd)—that in the interests of the industry, which we all wish to promote, the line chosen by the Government in this Bill is preferable to the line embodied in the Amendment, which was out of order.
There is, as was explained on Second Reading, full power for the Government to give a guarantee under Section 2 of the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act, 1946. The sole question between us is whether it should be laid down in the Bill that it is compulsory for the Government to give that guarantee, or whether that should be a power in reserve, to be used only if necessary. That is a fair statement of the extent of any difference there may be between us.
Her Majesty's Government hold the view—which I explained on Second Reading—that it is desirable, if it is possible, that the Corporation should raise such funds as are necessary, and as are made possible under this Measure, without a Government guarantee. I know that hon. Members opposite will agree that we ultimately look forward to a time when this industry will be able to stand on its own feet. That is the common desire, so it is surely right that when we pass a new statute we should take the first step in that direction.
I may be able to relieve hon. Gentlemen opposite of some anxieties if I remind them of certain facts. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West, had in mind that the period up to which advances could be made under the statutes would end in March, 1954. But the borrowing can continue to that date. Even if the view were correct—I hope that it may not be—that today a Government guarantee might be required, I am sure the hon. Gentleman did not wish to say that at no time before 1954 would it be possible for the industry to borrow without a Government guarantee.
The hon. Member spoke of the Government's showing confidence in the industry. I feel great sympathy with him on that, but surely we show much greater confidence if we leave the Bill as it now stands, rather than make the guarantee obligatory. He spoke not quite accurately of our withdrawing some guarantee. That is not the position. Under the previous statutes the Corporation was entitled to borrow from the Board of Trade. The present Bill enables it to borrow from sources other than the Board of Trade, but it can so borrow only with the consent of the Board of Trade and the Treasury. That gives the Government complete power to do what is necessary and desirable.
I suggest that it may be possible for the Corporation to borrow from time to time from outside sources without a Treasury guarantee. But if it proved at present impracticable without a Treasury guarantee, or possible only on unduly onerous terms in the absence of a guarantee, then the Government could provide a guarantee under the 1946 Act I have mentioned.
In putting forward this Measure Her Majesty's Government have every intention that it shall prove effective for


the purposes for which it is designed, which have the approval of both sides of the Committee. The Clause now under discussion is the sole operative Clause of the Bill. The Bill received a welcome from the whole House on Second Reading and I trust that, with this explanation, right hon. and hon. Members opposite may be satisfied that their fears are really groundless and that, on the small point of difference which has been disclosed between us, Her Majesty's Government are right in suggesting that the scheme put forward is that which shows greater confidence in the future of this industry.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have listened carefully to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said and I think that he has come more than half way to meeting the point of view we have endeavoured to put forward tonight. He has gone further this time than he did on Second Reading and further, too, than his right hon. Friend the President did on that occasion.
We are well aware that there is the 1946 Act on the Statute Book. Some of us were here then and helped to speed its passage through the House. It is a useful Measure and, obviously, can be used in this direction and, in our view, should be used.
We shall have this extra £2 million allocated to the Film Finance Corporation when the Bill goes through, and it would be absurd to put the Bill through the House unless we use the powers conferred by it and the money visualised in it is raised. We are fearful that, as the Corporation will have to obtain that money in the City and then, in turn, re-lend it to borrowers, by the time it reaches the ultimate user the terms may be 6, 7 or possibly 8 per cent.
What we want—and perhaps we have it from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said—is an assurance that when rates reach that height, he and his right hon. Friend will not hesitate to make this Act workable and of use, to go to the Treasury and get it to under-write such loans as may be necessary at that moment to under-write, to make financial assistance available to this great industry.

Mr. H. Strauss: Perhaps I may, out of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, speak again. As he knows, in these

matters the Corporation remains in touch with the Board of Trade throughout, and relations are close and friendly. Under the terms of this Bill it can only raise money from outside sources with the consent both of the Board of Trade and of the right hon. Gentleman's own former Department, with which he is so familiar.
As it is the determination of Her Majesty's Government that this Bill shall be effective for the purpose for which it was introduced, it is obvious that they will use that power, should it be desirable, to avoid the dangers that I described just now. But I am sure it would be undesirable, in the interests of this industry itself, that I should announce from this Box that I think it impossible for the Corporation to raise finance on terms without a guarantee.
Let us wait and see. But in the general spirit of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that we wish this Bill to be wholly effective for its object and should not ignore any powers that are necessary for this purpose, I agree and think I can give him that assurance.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINERS WELFARE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

11.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
It is not a very long time since we had the Second Reading of this Bill, and hon. Members who are present will recall that upon that occasion my right hon. Friend, in introducing the Second Reading, gave a very fair and, in the time available, a very full description of the Bill to the House.
Since that time it has not been amended substantially in Committee. There has been just one minor improvement of a


rather technical character that I bad the pleasure of introducing. It is not necessary, therefore, for me to detain the House upon the Third Reading by any elaborate or detailed statement concerning the contents of the Bill. I know that hon. Members are desirous of participating in the debate, and as my right hon. Friend will be winding up, I simply move the Third Reading formally to enable other hon. Members to speak.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Harold Neal: This is an agreed Bill, which the swing of the political pendulum has favourably thrust into the hands of the present Minister of Fuel and Power. It does not give rise to much contention, and my problem at this late hour is, not what to say, but how to say it in the least possible time consistent with clarity.
I confine my remarks in the main to one or two difficulties which are likely to be met after the "appointed day." After 31 years of its operation, miners' welfare has become an indispensable factor in the social and industrial life of the coalfields. It touches the miner at so many points of his life—at the pithead bath, where he performs his daily ablutions and is re-invigorated for his homeward journey; at the medical centre, that takes care of his disabilities; at the institute, where he indulges his sport and fraternises with his friends; and in the educational classes, where he improves his often too inadequate education. All these features of welfare have become inseparable from the normality of his daily existence.
For 31 years, the organisation and control of welfare activities have remained substantially the same. It is not unnatural, therefore, that some miners view with concern the prospect of a breach with the old associations and arrangements that have worked so satisfactorily. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said recently in one of his inspired public utterances that "the British had the distinction of being able to put new wine into old bottles without bursting them." I hope that miners will realise that that is what we are doing by the passage of the Bill. We are providing better facilities by a similar medium of service.
The miner tends to be conservative in everything but his politics, and, conse-

quently, it is likely that the new functions of the National Coal Board and the social welfare organisation are likely to be misunderstood. We may as well face the fact that the determination of local trusts and the transfer of funds and property will cause some heartburnings in the minds of those who have devoted their time, energy and experience to the creation and control of these desirable amenities in the coalfields. Colliery welfare now becomes the responsibility of the National Coal Board; but the miner himself must not be allowed to feel that he is left out of the picture.
Consultation, as the Parliamentary Secretary quite rightly emphasised during the Committee stage of the Bill, must be immediate and continuous if friction is to be avoided. The agreement which is given legal effect by this Bill—and as a layman I must say that I find it much less encumbered with legal jargon than the Bill itself—makes provision for special committees at colliery level. It is only permissive, and I could only hope that it was compulsory.
There have always been two sides to the management of pit-head baths and other aspects of colliery welfare, and there should not now be created the impression that there is only one side. Part 1 of the First Schedule defines colliery welfare purposes, and to quote the agreement between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers:
The Board shall assume responsibility for colliery welfare as a normal function of colliery management.
I hope that it is not intended by the Minister, or by this Bill, that colliery managers are to take charge of pit head baths, canteens and cycle stores because the colliery manager is pre-occupied with questions of planning, costs, expenditure, and output, among other duties, to say nothing of the statutory obligations laid upon him so far as safety is concerned. He has very little time to take on one more job. May we assume that the Coal Board's responsibility in this field will now be discharged by divisional labour inspectors and their area officers? Could that point be elucidated?
It is certainly more appropriate to those persons than to the colliery manager who has neither the same amount of time, nor the opportunity to undertake this


important work. We on this side want this important work to be in the hands of men who can devote sufficient time and attention to it, and we want to see labour directors and area welfare officers selected from the most capable men in the industry. There are now some who are septuagenarians, and we do not believe that such people should be entrusted with these duties. Many of them now fulfilling the work are out of touch with the needs of modern industry, and not acquainted with the psychology of the rising generation of miners. I appeal to the Minister to try to ensure that there is a great care used in the choice of men for this task, for, apart from other considerations, welfare work, if done by the right people, is bound to be transferred into many tons of coal output.
May I refer to welfare for workers in this industry who pass through illness or accident periods, and their re-settlement on returning? The problem of manpower in the industry is all too familiar to be reiterated tonight; there has been an increase in manpower in the present year, but wastage is still far too high. Here is an opportunity, in this Bill, for retaining men in the industry; too often, when a man has undergone an illness or accident and he returns, he gets put into the wrong job. As a consequence, he becomes dissatisfied and disgruntled, he invokes anathema on all and sundry, leaves the industry and is lost to coal-getting for ever.
We cannot afford to lose men in this way, and I hope the Minister will give special interest to this very necessary work. I urge him with all the earnestness at my command, and with all the solemnity of which I am capable, to recognise that one miner retained by this special service will be worth two of the Italians about whom there has been so much criticism in recent debates.
Although the Bill separates the functions and responsibilities of welfare, there is no reason why the two functions should completely diverge. It should be the aim to ensure that there is close co-ordination between the two branches of welfare, and especially in the fields which are likely to overlap. It should be recognised that colliery welfare and social welfare are serving the same ends.

Many of my colleagues, ex-miners like myself, have been provided with opportunities of studying mining conditions in other countries, and our investigations abroad have confirmed our belief that no miner works harder than the British miner. After descending pits in foreign countries and watching foreign miners at work, we have always returned with feelings of pride that no country in the world provides facilities for its miners superior to those in this country. We are glad to affirm that this Bill has the capability of continuing and even enhancing that high reputation.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: I think I shall be justified at the outset—although I do not want to strike a discordant note—in lodging an emphatic protest against the Government, or against those responsible for the arrangement of business, putting anything connected with the mining fraternity at the tail end of a long day's business.
I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman or his Parliamentary Secretary. I daresay they feel as strongly as my colleagues and I do about this putting off to the tail end of a long day's debate matters affecting the vital interests of the mining fraternity. I am one of those who believes in a maxim taught to me when I worked in the pit, "Speak your mind, yet be kind; Give good advice and yet be nice." I want to be kindly and to be nice.
From time to time, particularly in the last two or three years, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have paid tributes and eulogies to, and have thrown bouquets at, the miners, because of the remarkable job they are doing, but, when it comes to the question of dealing with legislation affecting their everyday lives and social conditions, we are not given the opportunity of thoroughly discussing Measures designed to bring some social and cultural benefits to them. This is the fifth time in recent months on which legislation and Regulations have been tucked away at the tail end of a long debate, and I want to say, in all frankness, that it ought not to happen. I hope the Government will take heed of the warning I have given.
We can rightly claim tonight that this Bill marks another milestone on the long,


hard journey that the miners have travelled. I was working at the coal face when the first mining industry legislation was placed on the Statute Book, and I cannot forget those men who, with their vision, determination and their plodding spirit, tried to establish better conditions for the mineworkers.
I think tonight of Bob Smillie, Tom Richards, Enoch Morell and Herbert Smith, of Stephen Walsh from the county in which I live and also of Peter Lee and many others who, in their day, tried to focus the minds of the non-mining public upon the importance of bringing about better conditions for the men who give us the product so essential to this country's prosperity. I know they were ridiculed, for I had the opportunity of working with them all. They have gone to their reward.
I know something of the valiant work they did and of their vision. I know of their determination and here may I take this opportunity as an ex-miner of paying my tribute to those men who, by their vision and determination, made it possible for the mining fraternity to enjoy greater amenities than ever before in their history.
It was my intention, when the Bill came before the House for Third Reading, to give some of the history of these matters, because, after all, it has an important bearing upon this Bill. Many times we tried in every conceivable way without legislation—by deputations, interviews and the use of all the other machinery available to us in the coalfields—to bring about some improvement in the miners' lot, but we failed.
We failed because some of the men who were opposed to us were so stupid and, as we say in Lancashire, "couldn't even see a hole through a ladder." Therefore, we were reluctantly compelled to use to some extent the strike weapon. It is sheer idiocy, in my judgment, for any body of workers, let alone miners, to use the strike weapon to secure what ought to be given to them without any strike at all.
No one on either side of the House can deny the right or the claim of the men in the pits to better social amenities than in years gone by. I am one of those who believes, rightly or wrongly, that if a man elects to earn his livelihood in the bowels of the earth producing

a commodity which is so essential, when he is shut out from the health giving rays of God's sunshine, he is entitled to the best amenities when he returns to the surface. I do not think that there is any hon. Member who will deny the miners that right.
The great Mines Act which was the product of the Conservative Party—and I pay tribute to them for it—was not brought forward till a great volume of public opinion stirred them up to the desirability of putting something on the Statute Book which would give the mining fraternity that to which they were entitled. That Act provided for the erection of pit-head baths, and although the original draft of the Bill made those baths compulsory, a provision was inserted before the Bill became law—and that is what we did not like—to the effect that pit-head baths could only be provided if a two-thirds majority of the men decided in favour of them and the total cost did not exceed 3d. per head.
What resulted should be quite obvious to any right-thinking man. At the end of the First World War the then Government were faced with a movement among the workers for increases in wages to meet the sharp rise in the cost of living; and I want to stress that wage demands by the miners at that time were coupled with demands for a fundamental change in the organisation of the industry.
There are few other industries where demands for a fundamental change in organisation have accompanied claims for increased wages. The miners decided to strike, and the Government were forced to agree to set up a commission of inquiry. Much evidence was given before that commission of bad housing, overcrowding and bad working conditions. Every hon. Member knows how the Sankey Commission found in favour of nationalising the industry.
They said that no judicial language was sufficiently strong or sufficiently severe to apply to the condemnation of housing conditions. They made certain recommendatons. The Commission said:
It is a matter for careful consideration whether 1d. a ton should not be at once collected on coal raised and applied to improve the housing amenities of each particular colliery district.


The Government accepted the recommendations of the Sankey Commission though they subsequently went back on their promise to nationalise the industry, for which the miners had to wait until 1946. Legislation was subsequently introduced to provide for a welfare fund. That was the beginning of the Measure which is now before the House.
At that time there was very strong feeling about the levying of ld. per ton on every ton of coal raised and it was in January, 1921 that the first committee was appointed to administer the fund. That was 30 years ago. District committees were set up consisting of local coalowners and workmen. In 1920 the amount of money contributed was £452,693 and in 1921, £679,998. The scope of the fund in those days can be judged from what was accomplished in improving social amenities in the mining villages and among the mining communities.
It provided 125 recreation grounds and playing fields, 99 institutes, four pit-head baths, 16 hospitals and convalescent homes, district nursing associations and 17 ambulances. I claim for the miners credit that they and their associations have always taken the greatest interest in the administration of the miners' welfare fund.
That cannot be denied. During the 30 years from 1920 to 1950 from the magic penny, as we call it in the minefields, £30,001,088 has been administered by the district and central committees, and I should like to pay my tribute, as an ex-miner, to the wonderful work of the Miners' Welfare Commission in bringing some health and happiness into the lives of the miners.
Up to 1950 we saw the installation of 413 pit-head baths bringing this facility to 479,000 men. Fifty-four new pit-head baths are on the way to provide for a further 60,000 miners. Canteens have been established, and all sorts of other things brought into the communal life of the miner. There are two branches of the Commission's activities which are now being transferred to the Ministry of Health—the hospitals and the rehabilitation centres. How true are the words of my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, who said that two trained miners who have been rehabilitated, restored, and

brought back to the pits, are worth more than half a dozen trained Italians.
I know the interest of the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary, and I know they are bent on doing a good job of work. We want to help them, but I must warn them seriously if they or the Ministry of Health tinker about with our rehabilitation centres there will be a first class row. Rehabilitation of the injured miner is of paramount importance in getting him back to work.
I know that this service is only in the experimental stage, but when we have to face a wastage of over 22,000 a year in the industry it is of paramount importance that we should avail ourselves of every opportunity of seeing that the men who have the misfortune to be overtaken by accident should have the opportunity of rehabilitation and return to their industry.
I could say a lot about education and housing. The Minister has now the opportunity of helping the mining fraternity the objectives in two points of the charter—the building of new towns and villages of a high standard situated at places where miners have increased facilities for social functions, and the breakdown of the segregation of the miners and their families from the rest of the community, accompanied by the provision of adequate transport routes. That is point No. 1a in our charter.
Point No. 11 is the complete reorganisation of health and welfare services so as to put a brake upon the wastage of manpower due to ill-health. The miners are no longer prepared to be a people living apart. They require, and must have, educational and cultural facilities available to other people.
As has been said, this is an agreed Measure. But whether it be a Measure reached by mutual agreement and with the minimum of controversy or not, I say it is no use unless a determination, foresight and dogged spirit are manifested towards it. The Ministry of Fuel and Power and the National Coal Board are now embarking on development in Scotland, in Cannock Chase, in Moseley Common, in St. Helens, in Sutton Manor; and here is an opportunity for the Minister to make these new development areas commensurate with what ought to be. I hope he will not miss that opportunity, whatever opposition he may meet.


If we can help him, either from these benches or from the Miners' Union, to overcome any opposition, we shall be only too willing to do so.
Of one thing I am thankful: the money we need to spend on improving social amenities and cultural amenities for the miners does not come from the Treasury. We have not to go to the Treasury for it. That is one pleasing feature, and there will be no complaint on that score.
Although I have not said all I intended to say, I conclude with the hope that the same determination and vision which was contained in the minds of the old pioneers will find its way into the minds of the right hon. Gentleman, of his Parliamentary Secretary and of his Department. If he goes forward with this Bill he will erect a monument in honour to the great pioneers of the Miners' Federation; he will be looked upon as the man who hastened the day when the mining fraternity got what they were richly entitled to. I strongly support the Third Reading of the Bill.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: It may well seem unnecessary to continue for any length of time a debate on a Measure which has not been challenged, but, as I come from the Scottish minefields, I felt that I could not allow the Third Reading to pass without saying a word or two. This Measure means so much. Had it been on the Statute Book 20 or 25 years ago, we should not have been in the position we are in today because of the shortage of coal.
I appreciate that the Minister of Fuel and Power is doing a good job of work. I wonder if he fully appreciates how good it is, and what it Means to the working man in the coalmining industry. I wonder if he realises what it would have meant had it been in operation 25 years ago, during the years when men were leaving the mines at the rate of 20,000 a year—not only because of the low wages but also because of the other conditions.
I wonder if he realises what it would have meant to me, walking home, for miles, in wet clothes on a cold morning and arriving home with my trousers frozen, capable of standing on their own. Look at the effect of that on the health of miners. Look at the effect on my

children. Would a man want his sons to continue in an industry of that sort? I feel I am still having to pay the price of that, even today.
I pay my tribute to those who pioneered the welfare work and to those who continued it. I cannot forget the struggle we had at some coalfields to get men to agree to pit-head baths, because they had to pay for them, and because pennies were so scarce that the few coppers for bath and soap meant so much. When we remember, also, that the miner's wife was up sometimes at 4 a.m., and that sometimes the miner came home wet and dirty, often bathed in a tin in the centre of the floor, and that his wife had to spend the whole night drying his clothes so that he could go back to the pit, we realise what this Bill will prevent.
In Scotland there are some areas where there are no amenities whatever. In Ayrshire there is not a single miners' welfare institute, and there are many districts in Fife where there are few or no welfare facilities. One of the biggest obstacles to attracting miners from areas where coal mines have become redundant is the lack of amenities. That is one of the things with which this Bill will deal.
I want to associate myself with what the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) said about the lateness of the hour. It is bad that we should have to apologise for making a speech so late. This Bill will mean more in increased productivity than many of the Measures that have caused long discussion. It is a milestone in the effort to make miners' lives more attractive, and it will not merely benefit the men in the industry but will attract more men to it. Had this been done years ago, what a difference it would have made. We have watched the progress of rehabilitation in Scotland, and have seen as a result of it men who were likely to have spent the rest of their lives in bath chairs going back to work. Anything that will extend that rehabilitation is worth while.
I hope that when we have passed this Measure those responsible for the erection of welfare centres and pit-head baths will co-operate to the full in making these things come true. There will be little use in it being on the Statute Book if the facilities are not provided. I appeal that the fullest co-operation may come from the Government Departments ands local authorities so that we may see some-


thing in operation that will benefit the miners.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I should like to support the Third Reading, and congratulate the Minister on bringing in this Bill. It is not the first Bill brought in for the benefit of miners emanating from the Conservative Party. I also want to pay tribute to those people who, in the past, have built up the welfare services, particularly one who worked with me when I was in the mining industry, and who was in this House for many years—the late Mr. Collindridge, whom we were all so sorry to lose during the last Election. If he had been here he would have been sitting on that Front Bench tonight, smiling, and happy to see something being done for the advancement of the people he was always trying to help.
During those difficult years when our coal prices were under-cut by foreign coal, management also went as far as it could in building up these welfare services. Now we see these institutions being handed over to the Coal Board on the one hand, and the social welfare organisation on the other. I hope that they will carry on with the work of former years.
I am particularly pleased to see Clause 7 of the Bill, in which there is special mention of the vocational education trust and vocational educational centres. The mining industry will depend more and more on the building up of those working in the pits from the face to deputy, foreman, agent, and manager. In the past we have lost a number of skilled men, fully trained in management, and we shall have to face a period when it will be difficult to find that kind of trained labour. I hope that the Minister will draw the attention of the Coal Board to its duties under the Clause, so as to provide every opportunity to people of energy and drive who want to progress in their work and take responsibility.
I hope that the fact that this Bill has been brought in by a Conservative Administration and that these powers will be put in the hands of the Coal Board will show that both sides of the House want to see the past rancour of politics taken out of the industry and let the board, management, and miners get down to the job of producing coal.

12.11 a.m.

Mr. Horace E. Holmes: I come from the neighbouring county to that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), and have been contemporary with him for 50 years; therefore, it is natural that my feelings towards this Bill should follow suit. I agree with his opening remarks, about the Second Reading being brought on late at night. Indeed, a Whip told an hon. Member that he could not speak on it.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts), because he came from the same coalfield as me, and his family did great work in this direction before welfare was thought of. When I was on the Conciliation Board, many years ago, I had my first canteen meal at his colliery and it was first-class.
I want to touch on history only briefly, On 2nd April it will be 50 years since I went down the pit at 13 years of age. Then the idea was to sink a pit, build three or four rows of back-to-back houses, put a public-house at one end and a working men's club at the other—I have no bias towards that—and then, when there was a dispute, wonder why the mining community were not men of noble character and high ideals.
Not only that. After they had built such a "beautiful" lay-out they used to surround it with a sulphurous, smoking dirt stack. I remember going to a tea party where a miner was celebrating his 90th birthday, and I asked the reason for his longevity. He said, "I live in that house there. I have been surrounded by that reeking dirt stack all my life. I have had bread, butter, and sulphur for breakfast, bread, cheese, and sulphur for supper, and here I am—90 years of age." That was the kind of approach we saw in the mining industry in my time and I do not call myself an old man yet. I am very appreciative of a Bill of this character being brought in. It is one on which we do not talk about pounds, shillings and pence or about absenteeism. My right hon. Friend on this Front Bench knows what some of us think about the continuous queries on absenteeism.
I see in this Bill something of the cultural side of life being brought to the mining community, something to which


they are entitled. I always had, not bitterness, but a feeling against the conditions in which I lived because, inherent in me, were desires for good things—for music, for literature. I can see within the ambit of this Bill, when we get our welfare fully developed on the social side, cultural activities being brought into the mining community to a greater degree than in the past. But even in the past, in recent years because of welfare we have seen grow up musical societies, drama societies, brass bands.
In my own division we have the famous Grimethorpe Band, the famous Frickley Band and the famous Carlton and Monckton bands—all broadcasting from time to time. All these things I can see arising out of this Bill, and when we get the better side of life we shall get a better mentality. I heard somebody say once that you cannot expect noble ideas to come from empty stomachs. Equally, you cannot expect noble ideas to come from drab surroundings.
There were one or two things I wanted to question, but at this late hour I do not propose to do so. However, I want to assure the Minister that although we may have the best possible set up at the national level or at the divisional level, or at the area level unless we get the proper approach at unit level the best scheme will not achieve the benefit desired. This one will be watched not only from the top level, not only from the divisional level, but from the unit level both by management and men.
In my opinion the Bill has come at a time when we have the best relationship between management and men at unit level that we have had in 50 years. I welcome this Bill, and we shall see not only that it becomes an Act of Parliament, not only that it is so many words on a piece of paper, but that it is implemented for the betterment of the mining community of this country.

12.19 a.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I share the regret of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) and my other hon. Friends that this debate has come at the end of a long and exhausting day of Parliamentary work. The speeches made on both sides of the House deserve a larger House and a larger public and

perhaps more publicity than they will have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) has seen this Bill through Committee on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and he and my other hon. Friends have said the appropriate words about it; and I want to add very little. I had something to do with the origins of the Bill, and before we part with it I want to congratulate the Minister on being able to bring it in and to congratulate all those who have been concerned in its preparation.
The Miners' Welfare Commission did magnificent work. The miners' rehabilitation centres, of which my hon. Friends have spoken, are to me among the most exciting and the most satisfying things I have ever seen in all my life. But this new arrangement is wise and right. As my hon. Friends have said, it is another milestone on the road to the better conditions which we intend to give to those who win our coal. My hon. Friends have described in more graphic language than I can command what welfare means and what the Bill may do to help us to solve the major problem of the mines in the years ahead: namely, keeping up the manpower which we ought to have.
The Bill is founded, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has said, on an agreement between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. The agreement was signed on 24th January last year. The signatures on it were: "Hyndley, Geoffrey Vickers, Will Lawther, Arthur Horner." The signature was almost the last act performed by Lord Hyndley as Chairman of the National Coal Board, and I want—I am sure on behalf of all parties in the House—to pay a heartfelt tribute to the magnificent work which he did for the Coal Board and for the nation. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."]
Lord Hyndley stuck to the job through the first five years of nationalisation. He stayed at his post long after his medical advisers had told him that he ought to quit. He faced and overcame immense difficulties of almost every kind. I am quite certain that he will find other forms of public service to do, but I am quite sure that the country will not soon forget the service which he rendered in a task


which was of crucial importance at a crucial time in the history of the nation.
Perhaps the greatest of his achievements was the new relation he established with the miners. It was not for nothing that the miners, at their annual conference, when he made his farewell speech, sang "For he's a jolly good fellow".
When I pay tribute to Lord Hyndley, I must do the same to those who signed the agreement for the mineworkers. During the whole time I was fortunate enough to be at the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the miners and their leaders showed a splendid spirit of patriotism. Their efforts in 1951 saw us through the difficulties of two winters. I am sure that the miners will always respond to the nation's needs. I hope that the Bill will help to make the miners feel that the nation understands the debt it owes to them and that it is resolved that that debt shall be paid.

12.23 a.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I have a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) said about the time of our debate today. I, too, feel sad that we could not have had it earlier in the day, but it would not be very useful, particularly at this time of night, to go into the reasons which have led to the particular circumstances we are now in.
I say at once how appropriate it was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) should pay his tribute to Lord Hyndley for the great work that he did, particularly in connection with the Miners' Welfare Commission. Naturally, I associate myself with what he said.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) referred to the conservative nature of the miner's temperament during at least a considerable part of his life. Since I have, on the Second Reading debate, given, quite properly, to the right hon. Gentleman the credit for the preparation of the Bill and the initiation of the discussions which led up to it, I hope he

will not mind if I say that it is a Measure in the true Conservative tradition.
What are we doing in the Bill? As everybody in the House has said, the work of the Miners' Welfare Commission has been a very fine work. It has grown up from the small beginnings of what the hon. Member for Ince described as the "magic penny" with perhaps difficulty as to whether there was enough provision for the baths, and so on. It gradually grew and became better and better as the years went by.
Now we have the great change of nationalisation, and it is obviously necessary to make the consequential changes with regard to the welfare work in the new conditions; and, as the hon. Member for Bolsover has said, the only feelings of anxiety are whether it may be too much of a change from the good work done in the earlier days of the Miners' Welfare Commission. But, from the agreement between the Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, we see how careful everybody has been to make only those changes which were necessary, and to keep as much of the old working as possible. Like the Miners' Welfare Commission, this is to be a joint effort, and although, for financial and other reasons, welfare is largely a matter for the National Coal Board, there will be consultation at almost every level.
There are special provisions for baths and canteens, and although I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a complete statement about the position of the labour directors and the welfare officers they have been so much in the work from the National Coal Board point of view that, although the Board has not made a statement about the arrangements proposed, it is only natural to think that they will be closely concerned with the work in the future.
It remains only for me to say that this is another milestone in the development of miners' welfare, and, successful as that has been in the past, we can hope that, under this Bill, it will be all the more useful, and glorious, in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

CONNAUGHT MILITARY HOSPITAL (CONDITIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Brigadier Mackeson.]

12.28 a.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: The Connaught Military Hospital was built at the beginning of the war and was occupied by Canadian wounded. It contains a number of brick and wood buildings, and Nissen huts, in open country near Hind-head in Surrey. In 1946, this hospital was taken over by our own military authorities for 350 tuberculosis beds, and the Nissen huts have not been used since it became a T.B. hospital.
On 27th January last, the Sunday Pictorial "published an article headed," Rats—in a T.B. ward!", which read,
Appalling conditions in a military T.B. hospital can be exposed today as a result of the "Pictorial's" nation-wide campaign against the things that disgrace Britain.
It went on to state that a Regular Army n.c.o., one of the 250 T.B. patients there, had given the "facts" to this newspaper; but I suggest that the conditions described in this article would have been more fittingly applied to the sick-bay in a concentration camp than in a British military hospital.
The article must have caused obvious grave disquiet to all persons interested in the care of the sick and conditions for them in the Forces, and it needs little imagination to judge the effect of this article not only on the relatives and friends of men in that hospital, but also on men who might have contracted this disease and had been told they were being sent there. It must have seemed to them that they were being sent to their deaths instead of being sent on the journey on the long road to health and happiness.
Being shocked at the nature of this article, on 19th February I addressed a Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who, in his reply, suggested that I should visit the hospital and study conditions on the spot. Subsequently, on 4th March, accompanied by officers of the Army Medical Services, including the D.G.M.S., I went to Hindhead. I stayed there from midmorning to mid-afternoon, and was given every opportunity to make a full examin

ation of the buildings, including the operating theatre and the kitchens, of the hospital. I questioned a considerable number of patients and members of the staff, and there was no hindrance in any way to my inquiries. I was given every help and opportunity.
My design in going to the hospital was to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations made, and, in the time at my disposal, I propose to compare the allegations made in the "Sunday Pictorial" with the facts which I ascertained during my visit to the hospital and with facts which I have obtained by other means since that date.
The "Sunday Pictorial" referred to an 18-year-old National Service man from Scotland who, wrote the reporter, told him that his ward, like others, was overrun by rats and that when he complained he was issued with three traps and in two nights caught five rats.
As a result of the investigations I have made, I am quite convinced that these allegations are absolutely untrue. I closely questioned members of the staff and patients in several wards, and they all emphatically denied these conditions. Several of the men, and this was supported by members of the staff, agreed that they had seen rats round some of the drains outside the kitchen, but, so far as I could ascertain, on only one occasion was a rat seen inside the hospital, and that was when the doors were open, as they always are, and one had come in from outside during the rest hour and was pursued and killed by some of the patients.
It is, in my view, a despicable allegation to say that the wards are overrun by rats. I should like to say that I have made some inquiries in London and that in one of our newest and best London hospitals I have ascertained that a rat was killed in a ward on the fourth floor some two years ago.
Then, there was a complaint about the pyjamas of patients. The article went on:
I was shown pyjamas issued to patients. They were badly stained. When a staff officer visited the hospital recently, all the patients were given clean pyjama jackets, and the stained trousers were covered by bed coats.
This, too, was a wicked distortion of the facts. I talked to many patients and


saw the laundry in the cupboards. Clean pyjamas and clean bed linen are issued to these men every Friday, and, if they require it more frequently, it is given to them without question. There was absolutely no evidence that I could find to support the suggestion that the bed linen and pyjamas were changed merely for the benefit of visiting officers.
Certainly, there are sometimes stains on pyjamas and bed linen. I have also ascertained by making inquiries at London hospitals that this applies to all hospitals in which drugs are used and men using these drugs are lying in bed. They cannot avoid dropping them sometimes on their pyjamas and the bed linen, and some of these medicinal strains cannot be removed by laundering. Is it to be suggested that when this happens, although the pyjamas and bed linen may be perfectly good in every other way, they should be thrown away? When I was in the hospital I questioned a man about this complaint, and he said that if they complained they could always have them changed if they wanted a change. Dirty articles are always sterilised in the laundry before they are allowed to go back to the wards. This process too may have some effect on how the blankets get stained.
The article goes on:
The army authorities admit that 50 pairs of stained pyjamas have been recently condemned.
This surely indicates that as and when pyjamas become unfit for use they are, in fact, discarded. There seems to be some implied stricture even in regard to matters which would appear to be perfectly proper behaviour. The article continues:
One patient told me that his blankets had not been changed in 14 months.
At the time when this reporter went to the hospital there were only two men who had been there since 1946, and both of them emphatically deny having made any statement to anyone about the changing of blankets. In fact, the records show that 520 blankets were changed in the three months before the appearance of the article.
The article says:
The walls of the ward—a Nissen hut—were stained and dirty.

But no one, in fact, has occupied a bed in a Nissen hut since the hospital was taken over in 1946, and not one Nissen hut has been used as a ward since the hospital was taken over as a T.B. hospital.
The article goes on to complain about food. It says:
The patients complain too much about the food. They say there is not enough and it is badly cooked. They get their families to send them additional supplies. One soldier said that his fiancée spends £2 a week on extra food for him.
Well, I was there during the dinner hour. I questioned many of the men and almost all of them described the food as "very good." There were one or two complaints about variety, and occasionally it was said that it was not well cooked, but generally the food was excellent.
I went to the women's ward in which there are a number of patients who are the wives and daughters of men in the Services. They were unanimous in saying that they were extremely well treated and—what is most important—that the food they were receiving was excellent. These women were receiving exactly the same food as the other ranks.
I went further: I obtained a diet sheet for the week preceding that in which this report appeared. It indicated the sort of food these men are having. Taking two days at random, I found that on 21st January breakfast consisted of scrambled eggs, tomatoes and porridge, dinner of roast beef, creamed potatoes, vegetable, stewed fruit pudding and custard and supper of shepherd's pie, fried potatoes, vegetable, Bakewell tart and custard. On 24th January they had bacon and tomatoes for breakfast, roast beef, roast potatoes, vegetable, steamed baked pudding and custard for dinner; and fried herring, creamed potatoes, and baked spaghetti pudding for supper. They could have soup for dinner and cereal for breakfast. At mid-morning they had half a pint of milk with biscuits, and this could be repeated if they wanted it. For afternoon tea they had bread and butter and/or cheese and cake, and in the evening bovril or milk if required.
Mr. Peter Hawkins, the reporter, sums up in his article by saying:
The military authorities admit that there are rats in the Connaught.
The fact is that they have not admitted at any time that there are rats in the


Connaught: they have said that there are rats at the Connaught, which is an entirely different matter. They have a trained rat-catcher to keep them down, but then most large institutions, particularly those places in the middle of the country, would have rats round them. I wonder how many there might be in the cellars under the Palace of Westminster!
The reporter says:
They admit that the food served is not good. Kitchen staff difficulties is their excuse.
There might be same element of truth in this though I could find very little sign of it. But the chief cook at the hospital for the previous two years, a W.R.A.C. Q.M.S. had been posted away some three months before the newspaper article appeared. Representations were made before Hawkins appeared on the scene, and she returned on 1st February, 1952.
The article went on:
They admit that the hospital buildings are not 'entirely suitable'—and they say that 'redecoration has had to be postponed until mid-March because of lack of funds '.
There is cause for complaint here. A modern brick building is needed. The present building can never be entirely satisfactory. But I submit that a great deal of good has been done with the existing conditions. The huts badly needed redecoration, and this is now well in hand. But this has nothing whatever to do with Hawkin's visit. He himself said in his article that it would be put under way in mid-March. Redecorations estimated to cost £17,000 are to be carried out.
I became so incensed the further I went into this matter that I telephoned this newspaper and asked if the reporter could come and see me. He did so on Tuesday the 12th. I questioned him about Nissen huts and he admitted that these men were not in Nissen huts. He rode it off by saying that he did not know what a Nissen hut was, because he had never been in the Forces. I could not help thinking that it would have been a good thing if he had been in one of the Services.
I found that the man who had written to him was a patient at the Royal Naval Hospital at Chatham where he had gone to have an operation. Chatham is in my constituency of Gillingham, which sounds rather Irish but is a fact. I called on

him last Saturday. Before I questioned him as to whether he had in fact written the letter that started these investigations by this newspaper man, he told me that he had been so comfortable at the Connaught Military Hospital that he had asked if he could go back there when he was fit enough after the operation. When I convinced him that I knew he had written to the "Sunday Pictorial," he repeated that he had always been comfortable at the Connaught and that he wished to return there.
He maintained that five rats had been caught in traps in the ward in two months and that two rats had been caught in the rest room, but when questioned he admitted that he had not seen them and that he was not in that ward. I found other men who had been in the actual ward where this man said the rats had been caught. They absolutely denied it, but they admitted that on one occasion one rat had been chased in the rest room by the patients. They emphatically denied that there were five rats. They said that occasionally mice from the fields came into the men's lockers where food was kept and that traps were provided for those who wanted them.
I have endeavoured to give a fair account of the conditions as I found them and from the investigations I have made. I am not qualified to express any views on the treatment of tuberculosis, but I took the liberty of communicating with a consultant in tuberculosis to the Army, who is one of the greatest authorities in this country. No doubt the House will be interested to hear some extracts from the very long report he was kind enough to send me. He wrote:
During my visit I took the opportunity not only of looking into the medical side of the problem, but of seeing the type of food, the way it was served, and whether it was hot or cold.
I also took an interest in the general cleanliness, as well as specific items such as washing and the type of crockery, blankets, sheets and various other items of equipment. I was very favourably impressed with all I saw. The food that came along in trolleys to the wards at twelve o'clock was hot and well-cooked. The diet is adequate and compares very favourably with institutions of a similar nature in civil life.
I am satisfied that both the medical treatment and the food and amenities of the hospital are adequate and that the Army personnel are getting the best available treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis. If our finances allowed there are improvements that could be made, such as painting in bright


colours, and various other items. As you know, there is television in the wards, which few civil hospitals have.
To sum up, I would say that the Army personnel of today, should they develop this disease will be thoroughly well treated and given every opportunity for their disease to become quiescent.
There is much more I should like to quote, but that is a fair indication of conditions. However, may I make one or two suggestions? I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he would look into the question of appointing a dietician at this hospital. It would help to vary the food still more of these men who might need their appetite tempted. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Naval Hospital at Chatham has a dietician. I should also like to suggest housing priority for those Regular soldiers suffering with tuberculosis. Many are not on housing lists anywhere and would have great difficulty in getting accommodation. It is essential that they should have proper housing conditions if their treatment is to continue and their health is to be fully restored.
I would also ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the responsibility of local authorities for the payment of maintenance charges at the Alemain Settlement. I would further ask him to look into the possibility of investigating the treatment of certain Army cases in Switzerland. I understand the Ministry of Health have some places, and the men in the Army should be given the opportunity of sharing in the available places. I should also like him to look at the general question of existing military hospital buildings, which I believe to be a matter of great urgency.
Finally, may I refer once again to this article in the "Sunday Pictorial"? It ends with these words:
We urge the War Office to clean up the scandal of the Connaught now.
My investigations have shown that there was no scandal at the Connaught to be cleaned up. But the article that prompted my actions is certainly both scandalous and irresponsible, and I hope that in future this newspaper, which is so much inclined to sensationalism, will very carefully check its information before printing articles which are not only untrue but must cause great anxiety and suffering to a great many people.

Mr. T. O'Brien: To lend emphasis to this remarkable story, can the hon. Gentleman say what notice was given of his intention to visit the hospital after he read the report?

Mr. Burden: I gave notice that I intended to visit the hospital. It was known I was going to visit it, but I then carried on investigations outside. I have not mentioned this, but I traced one young man who was in the hospital in late 1949, and he stated that in four and a half months he put on a stone and a half in weight. He is now a doctor and spoke of the hospital in the most glowing terms. I checked and cross-checked in every possible way.

12.49 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): It is perhaps not surprising, after a long and tiring week, that I should find myself in a position, with two honourable exceptions, of carrying on a duet with my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). It is unusual in an Adjournment debate to find that the duet is so much in harmony, as I am with what he has said tonight. There is no more powerful advocate than the converted critic. My hon. Friend started by being a severe critic of what was going on at the Connaught. I am, consequently, deeply indebted to him for destroying the exaggeration of the article in question, which paints a picture, as he has said, about as macabre as a war-time Picasso.
Nothing is perfect in life, and there is, consequently, a streak of justification here and there for some of the things which were said. The Connaught Hospital is not an oil painting, but the buildings which require painting are not those which are used for patients; they are used for storage. What made me anxious was that this false impression would be carried into so many homes in the country. Indeed, we received letters from far afield urging that sons and relatives should at once be taken away from the hospital.
As my hon. Friend said, the Connaught was not originally designed as a sanatorium for the treatment of T.B. cases, but, in face of the general shortage of facilities in this country for the treatment


of this fell disease, it has done good work and its record shows—and I think this is the acid test, if one wants to apply an acid test to this hospital—that, in 1951, 923 cases were admitted and there was only one death. Patients were discharged to their homes, to their units, to civil sanatoria and to other military hospitals. Of course, there are grumbles. The British Tommy would not be the British Tommy if he never had a grouse. Furthermore, this long, tiring and depressing disease is one which tends to increase grumbling.
I have not much more time left, but it would, indeed, be a task of supererogation if I answered all the criticisms which have been levelled and which have already been answered by my hon. Friend. I would add, however, that I have seen a list of recent improvements which have been made to the hospital, and it is impressive. They include new hospital kitchens, new types of hospital beds, loudspeakers and improvements to the X-ray department and equipment;

and we are about to carry out the redecoration of the interior, improvement to ward amenities, including extra windows, provision of games rooms, further improvements to the X-ray department and many others.
I would end by saying that I have noted the points raised by my hon. Friend and I will look into them. The appointment of a dietician is something which we have in mind. Everything for the treatment of this disease which is the concern of the local authorities must be their responsibility, but I hope and believe that this debate will have attracted their attention. We, on our part, will see what more can be done. I hope that after this brief incursion into the limelight the Connaught Hospital will be left in peace and quiet to get on with its work of restoring health.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes to One o'Clock a.m.